Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()
Date
Msg-id E4670DDB-2C63-4700-A87A-F83CF9D810B7@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Refactoring pg_dump's getTables()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 22:05, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Attached is a proposed patch that refactors getTables() along the
>> same lines as some previous work (eg 047329624, ed2c7f65b, daa9fe8a5)
>> to avoid having multiple partially-redundant copies of the SQL query.
>> This gets rid of nearly 300 lines of duplicative spaghetti code,
>> creates a uniform style for dealing with cross-version changes
>> (replacing at least three different methods currently being used
>> for that in this same stretch of code), and allows moving some
>> comments to be closer to the code they describe.
>
> Yeah, this seems a lot better than the original coding.

+1

> Maybe I would group together the changes that all require the same version
> test, rather than keeping the output columns in the same order.


I agree with that, if we're doing all this we might as well go all the way for
readability.

--
Daniel Gustafsson        https://vmware.com/




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nitin Jadhav
Date:
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: pgstat_assert_is_up() can fail in walsender