Re: pg_dump: Remove trivial usage of PQExpBuffer

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump: Remove trivial usage of PQExpBuffer
Date: 2025-12-16 23:02:21
Message-ID: CADkLM=e=4VY8EERZ2KJR4qCZSHWa1ax4gekUeS32GacxJeokZA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 5:44 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:

> > On 16 Dec 2025, at 23:03, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > One thing I have noticed is the usage of PQExpBuffer in situations where
> the query has no optional parts and no string interpolation.
>
> - res = ExecuteSqlQuery(fout, query->data, PGRES_TUPLES_OK);
> + res = ExecuteSqlQuery(fout,
> + "SELECT DISTINCT
> attrelid FROM pg_attribute "
> + "WHERE attacl IS NOT
> NULL",
> + PGRES_TUPLES_OK);
>
> I'm not sure I find it an improvement to put have to look after the query
> text
> (which can be long) for the ExecStatusType. Having it separated from the
> query
> is more readable IMHO (I know we have a mix of both already, but I kind of
> prefer passing in the buffer).
>

I considered replacing them all with the pattern where we assign the block
text to a char *querystr, and in fact that's done in the patch in a couple
of places where the query was an if/else constant. Is that more acceptable?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2025-12-16 23:09:51 Re: Custom oauth validator options
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2025-12-16 22:44:28 Re: pg_dump: Remove trivial usage of PQExpBuffer