Rebased *v13* patch is now ready for review and commit. On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 6:49 PM Akshay Joshi <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Chao Li* found an issue in my other patch for *pg_get_table_ddl.* > Specifically, > the existing pattern in pg_proc.dat for variadic-text functions (e.g., > jsonb_delete, json_extract_path) uses *_text* instead of *text* at the > variadic position in both proargtypes and proallargtypes, with provariadic > => 'text'. This is the convention documented by the sanity check in > src/test/regress/sql/opr_sanity.sql. > > I realized the same issue was present in this patch as well, so I have > fixed it and added corresponding test cases. > > The v12 patch is now ready for review and commit. > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 6:34 PM Akshay Joshi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 6:10 PM solai v <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:32 PM Japin Li <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Fri, 29 May 2026 at 12:20, Akshay Joshi < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > Thanks for the reviews. >>> > > >>> > > My original patch (v9) was actually correct. After considering >>> Japin's review comment, I initially thought the extra >>> > > parentheses weren't necessary, but they are indeed required for >>> handling boolean values properly in non-pretty mode too, >>> > > so I kept them in USING (%s) / WITH CHECK (%s) for both modes. >>> > > >>> > >>> > My bad! I had not considered this situation. >>> > >>> > > `pg_get_expr()` only adds outer parentheses for composite >>> expressions (via the deparsers for `OpExpr`, `BoolExpr`, etc.). >>> > > For atomic top-level nodes like `Const`, `Var`, `current_user`, >>> `NULL`, etc. >>> > > For example: >>> > > >>> > > CREATE POLICY p ON t USING (true); >>> > > SELECT pg_get_policy_ddl('t', 'p'); -- previously: ... USING >>> true; (syntax error) >>> > > >>> > > This is exactly why `pg_dump` always wraps the expression >>> unconditionally; see `src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c`:4473-4477: >>> > > >>> > > if (polinfo->polqual != NULL) >>> > > appendPQExpBuffer(query, " USING (%s)", polinfo->polqual); >>> > > if (polinfo->polwithcheck != NULL) >>> > > appendPQExpBuffer(query, " WITH CHECK (%s)", >>> polinfo->polwithcheck); >>> > > >>> > > I've also added a round-trip regression test with `USING (true)` / >>> `WITH CHECK (false)` that captures the generated DDL, >>> > > drops the policies, re-executes the DDL, and verifies the policies >>> are recreated. >>> > > >>> > > v11 Patch attached for review. >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 7:12 PM Ilmar Y <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > The following review has been posted through the commitfest >>> application: >>> > > make installcheck-world: not tested >>> > > Implements feature: tested, failed >>> > > Spec compliant: not tested >>> > > Documentation: not tested >>> > > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > I looked at v10, focused on whether the generated CREATE POLICY >>> statement >>> > > can be executed again. >>> > > >>> > > The patch applies cleanly on current master at >>> > > 8a86aa313a714adc56c74e4b08793e4e6102b5ca. >>> > > >>> > > git diff --check reports no issues. >>> > > >>> > > I built with: >>> > > >>> > > ./configure --prefix="$PWD/pg-install" --without-readline >>> --without-zlib --without-icu >>> > > make -s -j8 >>> > > make -s install >>> > > >>> > > make -C src/test/regress check TESTS=rowsecurity >>> > > >>> > > ended up running the full parallel_schedule in this makefile; all >>> 245 tests >>> > > passed, including rowsecurity. >>> > > >>> > > I found one correctness issue in the generated non-pretty DDL. The >>> code >>> > > assumes that pg_get_expr_ext(..., false) already returns the >>> parentheses >>> > > required by CREATE POLICY syntax, but that is not true for simple >>> boolean >>> > > constants. >>> > > >>> > > For example: >>> > > >>> > > CREATE TABLE t(a int); >>> > > CREATE POLICY p_true ON t USING (true); >>> > > SELECT ddl FROM pg_get_policy_ddl('t', 'p_true', 'pretty', 'false') >>> AS ddl; >>> > > >>> > > returns: >>> > > >>> > > CREATE POLICY p_true ON public.t USING true; >>> > > >>> > > If I drop the policy and execute that generated statement, it fails: >>> > > >>> > > ERROR: syntax error at or near "true" >>> > > LINE 1: CREATE POLICY p_true ON public.t USING true; >>> > > ^ >>> > > >>> > > The same issue reproduces for WITH CHECK: >>> > > >>> > > CREATE POLICY p_check ON t FOR INSERT WITH CHECK (false); >>> > > >>> > > is reconstructed as: >>> > > >>> > > CREATE POLICY p_check ON public.t FOR INSERT WITH CHECK false; >>> > > >>> > > and executing it fails at "false". >>> > > >>> > > So I think USING and WITH CHECK need to be parenthesized in >>> non-pretty mode >>> > > too, or the tests should include a round-trip execution check for >>> generated >>> > > DDL with simple boolean expressions. >>> > > >>> > > I used two small SQL reproducers for the manual checks; the >>> complete repro is >>> > > included above. >>> > > >>> > > I have not reviewed the broader pg_get_*_ddl API design or every >>> possible >>> > > policy expression form. >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Ilmar Yunusov >>> > > >>> > > The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author >>> > >>> >>> >>> I reviewed and tested the V11 pg_get_policy_ddl() patch. I verified >>> the basic functionality by creating various row-level security >>> policies and checking the reconstructed DDL returned by >>> pg_get_policy_ddl(). The function correctly reconstructed policies for >>> different command types (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), PERMISSIVE >>> and RESTRICTIVE policies, multiple role lists, quoted identifiers, >>> USING clauses, and WITH CHECK clauses. >>> I also tested more complex cases involving subqueries. Policies >>> containing EXISTS subqueries in both USING and WITH CHECK clauses were >>> reconstructed successfully. Nested subqueries were also handled >>> correctly, and I did not encounter any issues related to expression >>> reconstruction or variable handling. I verified NULL input handling as >>> well. Passing NULL values for the table name or policy name returned >>> no rows as expected. Invalid relation names resulted in the expected >>> regclass resolution error. One observation from testing is that the >>> generated DDL omits default clauses such as FOR ALL and TO PUBLIC. For >>> example, a policy created with FOR ALL TO PUBLIC is reconstructed >>> without those clauses, while still producing semantically equivalent >>> DDL. I'm not sure whether this is intentional or if the function is >>> expected to reproduce all clauses explicitly, but it may be worth >>> discussing. >>> Overall, the patch worked as expected in all scenarios I tested, and I >>> did not find any functional issues. >>> >> >> Thanks for the review. The omission of FOR ALL and TO PUBLIC is >> intentional and matches the long-standing convention used by >> pg_get_indexdef, pg_get_constraintdef, pg_get_viewdef, etc.: emit a clause >> only when it differs from the parser's default. The result is semantically >> equivalent to the CREATE POLICY DDL. >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Solai >>> >>
v13-0001-Add-pg_get_policy_ddl-to-reconstruct-CREATE.patch
Description: Binary data
