Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
Date
Msg-id 34dc4d59-fec8-43c2-aa7b-38917b3ce0aa@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation  (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>)
Responses Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
List pgsql-hackers
On 2026-04-05 Su 12:35 PM, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 at 17:06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> Pushed. I have moved the remaining get_*_ddl items to PG20-1
> +1 on having  this feature in general. But I'm not sure I understand
> why it needs the whole bespoke string-based option parsing in the
> first commit. Why not use named arguments for this, i.e. have the
> usage syntax be:
>
> SELECT * FROM pg_get_role_ddl('regress_role_ddl_test3', pretty => true);
>
> Instead of the current:
>
> SELECT * FROM pg_get_role_ddl('regress_role_ddl_test3', 'pretty', 'true');


There was quite a deal of discussion around this mechanism. See Euler's 
review at [1] and follow-up at [2] for the original discussion of the 
VARIADIC option-parsing design and the use cases it was meant to 
address. I'm prepared to revisit it is there's a strong consensus on the 
point.


cheers


andrew



[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4e60bcae-8222-4e1f-8e5b-d73b59c93304%40app.fastmail.com 

[2] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4c695e76-5ab7-449f-8060-76518dd41468%40app.fastmail.com 


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]