Re: pg_get_domaindef
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_get_domaindef |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 482.1169652329@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_get_domaindef (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_get_domaindef
Re: pg_get_domaindef Re: [pgsql-patches] pg_get_domaindef |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > FAST PostgreSQL wrote: >> Please find attached the patch with modifications > are you proposing to implement the other functions in this TODO item > (pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(), > pg_get_tabledef(), pg_get_functiondef() ) ? I haven't entirely understood the use case for any of these. It's not pg_dump, for a number of reasons: one being that pg_dump still has to support older backend versions, and another being that every time we let backend SnapshotNow functions get involved, we take another hit to pg_dump's claim to produce a consistent MVCC snapshot. But my real objection is: do we really want to support duplicative code in both pg_dump and the backend? Updating pg_dump is already a major PITA whenever one adds a new feature; doubling that work isn't attractive. (And it'd be double, not just a copy-and-paste, because of the large difference in the operating environment.) So I want to hear a seriously convincing use-case that will justify the maintenance load we are setting up for ourselves. "Somebody might want this" is not adequate. Perhaps a better area of work would be the often-proposed refactoring of pg_dump into a library and driver program, wherein the library could expose individual functions such as "fetch the SQL definition of this object". Unfortunately, that'll be a huge project with no payoff until the end... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: