| From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | Akshay Joshi <akshay(dot)joshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com, zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_table_ddl() to reconstruct CREATE TABLE statements |
| Date: | 2026-06-23 14:03:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAB-JLwbc=9iqgNiLFHAM0-ZMDD=reFsbDS+QFsSepfwZEtRFDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em ter., 23 de jun. de 2026 às 10:34, Akshay Joshi <
akshay(dot)joshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> escreveu:
> A quick note on a design change I made in the *pg_get_table_ddl* option
> surface
>
Much better now.
All options can be present or omitted, so why couldn't the owner also be
part of the include/exclude options too ?
Just one addition, some options are plural and others are not.
We have indexes, policies, triggers, but we also have check, unique,
exclusion.
You don't know how many indices or checks you have, so wouldn't it be
better to have them in singular form ?
regards
Marcos
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-06-23 14:12:14 | Re: for loop variable fixes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-06-23 13:53:08 | Re: The PostgreSQL C Dialect |