Hash: RIPEMD160

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Can we perhaps add to the TODO to get the pretty print functions audited
and tested out? I'm sure people are already using the pretty print option
today via psql so it seems like this should be a high priority. Plus of
course I'd like to see it added to pg_dump once Peter, yourself, and
others have more confidence in it working as one would expect.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200701301509


---------------------------(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

Reply via email to