Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()
Date: 2021-10-17 22:38:12
Message-ID: 1477471.1634510292@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Yeah, this seems a lot better than the original coding. Maybe I would
> group together the changes that all require the same version test,
> rather than keeping the output columns in the same order. This reduces
> the number of branches. Because the follow-on code uses column names
> rather than numbers, there is no reason to keep related columns
> together. But it's a clear improvement even without that.

Yeah, I thought about rearranging the code order some more, but
desisted since it'd make the patch footprint a bit bigger (I'd
want to make all the related stanzas list things in a uniform
order). But maybe we should just do that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-10-18 01:33:21 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Previous Message Isaac Morland 2021-10-17 21:48:06 Re: [PATCH] Proposal for HIDDEN/INVISIBLE column