On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 2:44 PM solai v <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 4:48 PM Akshay Joshi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > I've updated the patch to align with the interface change introduced by > commit d6ed87d1989 (Andrew Dunstan, 2026-06-26 "Use named boolean > parameters for pg_get_*_ddl option arguments"). > > > > That commit replaced the VARIADIC text[] alternating key/value option > interface with typed named boolean parameters across pg_get_role_ddl(), > pg_get_tablespace_ddl(), and pg_get_database_ddl(), removing the > DdlOption/parse_ddl_options() machinery in favour of direct > PG_GETARG_BOOL() calls. > > > > Updated patch v14 is ready for review/commit. > > > > > I reviewed and tested the v14 patch on the latest master. The patch > applied cleanly, built successfully, and passed make check without any > regression failures. I verified the new function signature and > confirmed that pg_get_policy_ddl() now uses the new interface with the > boolean DEFAULT false argument. Also I tested the function with a > variety of row-level security policies, including: Basic policy > reconstruction, PERMISSIVE and RESTRICTIVE policies, Different command > types (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), Policies with multiple roles > and the PUBLIC role, Quoted table, policy, and role names, USING and > WITH CHECK clauses, Complex expressions including EXISTS, nested > subqueries, CASE expressions, COALESCE, ANY/ALL operators, and boolean > expressions, NULL inputs, invalid relation names, and non-existent > policies. The generated DDL was correct as per the intent, and the > expected errors were verified for the invalid inputs. I also verified > that the generated DDL is executable by dropping an existing policy, > recreating it using the output of pg_get_policy_ddl(), and confirming > that the recreated policy was reconstructed successfully again by the > function. > One observation I noted is that for policies using default attributes > (TO PUBLIC and AS PERMISSIVE), the generated DDL omits those clauses > and produces a semantically equivalent statement which seems > intentional but thought of sending it here for further clarification. > Overall, I did not encounter any functional issues during testing. The > patch looks good to me and worked as expected in all the scenarios I > tested. > Yes, it's intentional for all pg_get_***_ddl functions. Clause with defaults won't be reconstructed. > > > Regards, > Solai >
