Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2291232.1771459819@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement (Haritabh Gupta <haritabh1992@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement
Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement Re: [PATCH] pg_get_domain_ddl: DDL reconstruction function for CREATE DOMAIN statement |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Haritabh Gupta <haritabh1992@gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks for addressing the comments. I tested v7 and found that
> type modifiers (typmod) are lost in the base type output.
This report crystallized something that's been bothering me
about not only pg_get_domain_ddl() but all the similar patches
that are in the queue. They are adding a large amount of new
code that will have to be kept in sync with behavior elsewhere,
and there is basically zero forcing function to ensure that
that happens. Even the rather-overly-voluminous test cases
proposed for the functions cannot catch errors of omission,
especially not future errors of omission.
I don't really know what to do about this, but I don't like the
implementation approach that's being proposed. I think it's
loading too much development effort and future maintenance effort
onto us in comparison to the expected benefit of having these
functions.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: