Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/17/17 10:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > (FWIW, I'm wondering because I was just looking to see why there's no > > > details for things like altering a column in a table.) > > Do you mean you want to have access to the details of the alter table > > operations being executed? There's no structured data for that; you > > need to write a C function to examine the pg_ddl_command opaque column. > > Yeah. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a user to want to get at that info.
Sure. We have the extension that turned the command into JSON. It's still an unfinished patch, sadly, even though Alex Shulgin spent a lot of effort trying to get it finished. It is still missing a nontrivial amount of work, but within reach ISTM. > Could the opaque column be mapped to a composite? No. If it could, we would just have added the fields to the output of the function. > I guess that'd be a bit of > a pain due to the union. :/ And I have a suspicion that alterTable.subcmds > is a list of CollectedCommand, making things more fun. The AT subcmds have their own struct, so it's even more fun than that. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
