Re: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 4B5E249F-3DDD-4C61-9D54-93E8BDC80ED5@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 23 Mar 2020, at 17:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> When looking at something different, I happened to notice that pg_dump is a bit
>> inconsistent in how it qualifies casts to pg_catalog entities like regclass and
>> oid.  Most casts are qualified, but not all.  Even though it functionally is
>> the same, being consistent is a good thing IMO and I can't see a reason not to,
>> so the attached patch adds qualifications (the unqualified regclass cast in the
>> TAP test left on purpose).
>
> While this used to be important before we made pg_dump force a minimal
> search_path, I'm not sure that there's any point in being picky about
> it anymore.  (psql's describe.c is a different story though.)

Correct, there is no functional importance with this.  IMO the value is in
readability and grep-ability.

cheers ./daniel


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10