Re: Reject invalid databases in pg_get_database_ddl() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Reject invalid databases in pg_get_database_ddl()
Date
Msg-id 4f0d336f-3de6-4671-b7d2-b7d8e3cbf790@dunslane.net
Whole thread
In response to Re: Reject invalid databases in pg_get_database_ddl()  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2026-04-17 Fr 12:22 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 1:21 PM Lakshmi N <lakshmin.jhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:31 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 11:49 AM Hu Xunqi <huxunqi.08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 10:16 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Reject invalid databases: datconnlimit = -2 would be emitted as
>>>> +        * CONNECTION LIMIT = -2, which cannot be executed.
>>>> +        */
>>>>
>>>> This comment looks a bit too centered on datconnlimit=-2, but the real issue is that an invalid pg_database row
shouldnot be deparsed into DDL. So, maybe rephrase like:
 
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Reject invalid databases. Deparsing a pg_database row in invalid state
>>>> * can produce SQL that is not executable, such as CONNECTION LIMIT = -2.
>>>> */
>>> I was trying to be precise about datconnlimit = -2 being the thing
>>> that produces invalid SQL. But your version covers that with the "such
>>> as CONNECTION LIMIT = -2" example, and it's closer to the original,
>>> which was on the right track, just needed to be more precise. Let's go
>>> with it.
>> This looks good to me. Thank you for reviewing and making the changes!
> Pushed.
>

Thanks for jumping on this.


cheers


andrew

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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Xuneng Zhou
Date:
Subject: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn
Next
From: "cca5507"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix hashed ScalarArrayOp semantics for NULL LHS with non-strict comparators