Re: SHOW CREATE

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SHOW CREATE
Date: 2019-07-15 14:18:55
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZCitzd8FQdf6=xaPEewtQmYFXRLbWF1oq+D1ahiGJuVw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd like to hear what others have to say, and incorporate that feedback into a follow up proposal.

I am unclear how this could be implemented without ending up with a
ton of extra code that has to be maintained. pg_dump is a client-side
tool that does this; if we also have a server-side tool that does it,
then we have two things to maintain instead of one. I think that's
probably a non-trivial effort. I think you need to give some serious
thought to how to minimize that effort, and how to write tests that
will catch future problems without requiring everybody who ever makes
a DDL change ever again to test it against this functionality
specifically.

I would also like to complain that the original post of this thread
gave so little context that, unless you opened the patch, you wouldn't
have any idea what the thread was about. Ideally, the topic of a
thread should be evident from the subject line; where that is
impractical, it should be evident from the text of the first email; if
you have to open an attachment, that's not good. It may deprive people
who may have a strong opinion on the topic but limited time an
opportunity to notice that a discussion on that topic is occurring.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-07-15 14:20:48 Re: Check-out mutable functions in check constraints
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-07-15 14:04:47 Re: Built-in connection pooler