"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Eisentraut replied: >> The harm here is that under undefined circumstances a dump file >> will not be a proper and robust representation of the original >> database, which would add significant confusion and potential for error.
> What "undefined circumstances" are we talking here? If there is a chance > that pg_get_viewdef and company do not output a version that can be > read again by the database because we simply changed the whitespace, that > sounds like a serious bug to be fixed, not a reason to reject this > optional flag. The original definition of the prettyprint flag was that it'd produce a version that was nice to look at but not guaranteed to parse back exactly the same; in particular it might omit parentheses that perhaps were really needed to ensure the same parsing. (I think there might be some other issues too ... but whitespace is NOT one of them.) It's possible that the current prettyprint code is smart enough to never make such an error --- and then again it's possible that it isn't. Like Peter, I've not got much confidence in that code, and don't want to trust pg_dump's correctness to it. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly