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
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 |