On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:


Following up this patch with a contribution statement.

'With permission from the Managing Director, Fujitsu Australia Software 
Technology, I am granting the PostgreSQL Global Development Group the 
non-revokable right to distribute the source code in this patch under the BSD 

Arul Shaji

> I always felt is was better for us to have server functions that return
> schema-specific data rather than require every application to define its
> own functions.  I realize they are duplicated in pg_dump, but even if we
> made an external library that pg_dump could share with applications,
> would it only be available to C applications?  That seems quite
> limiting.
> Of course, if people don't need these functions, then we shouldn't have
> them.
> Seems we have to decide on this one so we can update the TODO or apply
> the patch.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > FAST PostgreSQL wrote:
> > >> Please find attached the patch with modifications
> > >
> > > are you proposing to implement the other functions in this TODO item
> > > (pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(),
> > > pg_get_tabledef(), pg_get_functiondef() ) ?
> >
> > I haven't entirely understood the use case for any of these.  It's not
> > pg_dump, for a number of reasons: one being that pg_dump still has to
> > support older backend versions, and another being that every time we
> > let backend SnapshotNow functions get involved, we take another hit to
> > pg_dump's claim to produce a consistent MVCC snapshot.
> >
> > But my real objection is: do we really want to support duplicative code
> > in both pg_dump and the backend?  Updating pg_dump is already a major
> > PITA whenever one adds a new feature; doubling that work isn't
> > attractive.  (And it'd be double, not just a copy-and-paste, because of
> > the large difference in the operating environment.)  So I want to hear a
> > seriously convincing use-case that will justify the maintenance load we
> > are setting up for ourselves.  "Somebody might want this" is not
> > adequate.
> >
> > Perhaps a better area of work would be the often-proposed refactoring of
> > pg_dump into a library and driver program, wherein the library could
> > expose individual functions such as "fetch the SQL definition of this
> > object".  Unfortunately, that'll be a huge project with no payoff until
> > the end...
> >
> >                     regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
This is an email from Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd, ABN 27 003 
693 481. It is confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which 
it was addressed and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged 
information. No one else may read, print, store, copy or forward all or any of 
it or its attachments. If you receive this email in error, please return to 
sender. Thank you.

If you do not wish to receive commercial email messages from Fujitsu Australia 
Software Technology Pty Ltd, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to