Hi all, On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 4:01 PM Akshay Joshi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. >> >>
Ok. Thank you for the clarification. Regards, Solai
