Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>
>>
>>>It just seemed complex to figure out which operators needed parens and
>>>which didn't.
>>>
>>>
>>The fact that the first attempt was wrong doesn't improve my faith in
>>that code one bit ;-).
>>
It was posted expressively with request for comment/review to locate
bogus/non-fail-safe assumptions. That operator thing was introduced
last-minute before feature freeze, coded late at night.
>>I don't want pg_dump invoking it, even as an option. Someone will get burnt.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, even if we get it right now, it might break in the future by a
>change somewhere else, and we may not discover the breakage until it is
>too late.
>
Doesn't this apply to any change?
pg_dump can be used as a kind of reverse-engineer tool, that's why
user-readability can make sense. I wonder when somebody wishes pgAdmin3
to do that for a complete db (effectively duplicating pg_dump's feature)...
Regards,
Andreas