Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump pretty_print

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump pretty_print
Date: 2007-01-30 20:14:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Hash: RIPEMD160

Tom Lane wrote:
> The original definition of the prettyprint flag was that it'd produce a
> version that was nice to look at but not guaranteed to parse back
> exactly the same; in particular it might omit parentheses that perhaps
> were really needed to ensure the same parsing.  (I think there might be
> some other issues too ... but whitespace is NOT one of them.)  It's
> possible that the current prettyprint code is smart enough to never make
> such an error --- and then again it's possible that it isn't.  Like
> Peter, I've not got much confidence in that code, and don't want to
> trust pg_dump's correctness to it.

Can we perhaps add to the TODO to get the pretty print functions audited
and tested out? I'm sure people are already using the pretty print option
today via psql so it seems like this should be a high priority. Plus of
course I'd like to see it added to pg_dump once Peter, yourself, and
others have more confidence in it working as one would expect.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200701301509


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: TimasmithDate: 2007-01-30 20:17:19
Subject: Re: SQL to get a table columns comments?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-01-30 19:17:53
Subject: RI checks during UPDATEs

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-01-30 20:17:15
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix
Previous:From: J. Andrew RogersDate: 2007-01-30 16:53:23
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix for plpython functions; return true/false for boolean,

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group