| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, gonzalemario(at)gmail(dot)com, dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com, euler(at)eulerto(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_*_ddl() needs a redesign |
| Date: | 2026-09-11 14:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob7zBtCRc+U-vU5N=Z45Qt_fYCT9ge5tQ-hNhuG-OhFvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:35 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> The first discussion linked from the 76e514e commit message, [1], described
> the "main use case" as "dumping role definitions for migration or backup
> purposes without needing pg_dumpall". My review findings are about failures
> that arise when using the feature as part of a migration.
>
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/4c5f895e-3281-48f8-b943-9228b7da6471@gmail.com
I think you're absolutizing this to a greater degree than seems fair
to me. I agree with you that the justification for not including
passwords in the output doesn't make sense; IMHO, not including them
is just incorrect behavior. The dependency handling thing I do not
find so black-and-white. I think that point merits discussion, rather
than conclusory statements.
--
Robert Haas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-09-11 14:10:55 | Re: Logical Implication |
| Previous Message | Fabrizio Mello | 2026-09-11 13:48:32 | Re: Fix failing assert in deferred constraint trigger |