Greetings, * Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Again, would be great to see someone actually work on this. There's > > already a good chunk of code in core in pg_dump and in the postgres_fdw > > for doing exactly this and it'd be great to consolidate that and at the > > same time expose it via SQL. > > Note that this is hardly new ground: we've heard more-or-less the same > proposal many times before. I think the reason it's gone nowhere is > that most of the existing infrastructure is either in pg_dump or designed > to support pg_dump, and pg_dump is *extremely* opinionated about what > it wants and how it wants the data sliced up, for very good reasons. > Reconciling those requirements with a typical user's "just give me a > reconstructed CREATE TABLE command" request seems fairly difficult. Yet we're already duplicating much of this in postgres_fdw. If we don't want to get involved in pg_dump's feelings on the subject, we could look to postgres_fdw's independent implementation which might be more in-line with what users are expecting. Having two separate copies of code that does this and continuing to refuse to give users a way to ask for it themselves seems at the least like an odd choice. > Also, since pg_dump will still need to support old servers, it's hard > to believe we'd accept any proposal to move that functionality into > the server side, which in turn means that it's not going to be an easy > SQL command. No, it won't make sense to have yet another copy that's for the currently-running-server-only, which is why I suggested it go into either a common library or maybe into libpq. I don't feel it would be bad for the common code to have the multi-version understanding even if the currently running backend will only ever have the option to ask for the code path that matches its version. > These issues probably could be surmounted with enough hard work, but > please understand that just coming along with a request is not going > to cause it to happen. People have already done that. (Searching > the mailing list archives might be edifying.) Agreed- someone needs to have a fair bit of time and willingness to push on this to make it happen. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
