| From: | Jeremy Smith <jeremy(at)musicsmith(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE |
| Date: | 2023-05-13 19:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAM8SmLV3RcGHsnhwk9=vAdhUGnYfCQ9xUsrBdXwyKn=_9wCDLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 13, 2023, 3:25 AM Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Does this imply SQL SYNTAX like:
>
> SHOW CREATE TABLE <table_name>
> [ INCLUDING { ALL | INDEXES | SEQUENCES | ??? }]
> [EXCLUDING { PK | FK | COMMENTS | STORAGE | } ]
> [FOR {V11 | V12 | V13 | V14 | V15 }] ??
> ?
>
Personally, I would expect a function, like pg_get_tabledef(oid), to match
the other pg_get_*def functions instead of overloading SHOW. To me, this
also argues that we shouldn't include indexes because we already have a
pg_get_indexdef function.
-Jeremy
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirk Wolak | 2023-05-14 06:20:07 | Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2023-05-13 18:28:11 | Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-05-13 21:47:53 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2023-05-13 18:28:11 | Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE |