Re: Exposing keywords to clients

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Exposing keywords to clients
Date: 2008-05-03 00:26:10
Message-ID: 28825.1209774370@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW pg_dump has fmtId() which does something related.

> I think it's a bit bogus to be using the list as compiled client-side,
> precisely due to the theoretical chance that it could change from one
> server version to the next, but it's probably not very likely that we
> ever remove a keyword from the server grammar.

Actually, it's 100% intentional that pg_dump does it that way --- I
would not support modifying it to use this function (even if it existed
in the back branches). The reason is exactly that pg_dump wants to
generate output that is correct for its own PG version, not that of the
server it's dumping from.

The tradeoffs are probably different for pgAdmin, but it is important to
realize that either way might be the best thing for a particular case.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-05-03 00:26:29 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sigh ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-03 00:12:44 Re: plpgsql RETURN QUERY EXECUTE