Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.300.41.1.7\))
Subject: Re: updates for handling optional argument in system functions
From: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aW_GMVYZqGnebYLE@o>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:45:35 +0800
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0604F7D7-EABE-47CA-A58A-231CBD0DA659@gmail.com>
References: <aTiwu9o8vBkLreAL@ltdrgnflg2> <aW_GMVYZqGnebYLE@o>
To: Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0604F7D7-EABE-47CA-A58A-231CBD0DA659%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On Jan 21, 2026, at 02:15, Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi everyone,
>=20
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 03:28:59PM -0800, Mark Wong wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>=20
>> I noticed how it was preferred to define optional arguments with the
>> system functions in system_functions.sql instead of defining them in
>> pg_proc.dat.
>>=20
>> I took a gross stab at updating the ones that ended in _ext, which
>> turned out to be 7 declarations across 6 system functions, and =
created a
>> patch per system function, hoping it would be easier to review.
>>=20
>> Perhaps the most interesting thing to share is the total reduction of
>> the lines of code, although system_functions.sql only grows:
>>=20
>> src/backend/catalog/system_functions.sql |  49 ++++++++
>> src/backend/utils/adt/ruleutils.c        | 130 ----------------------
>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat          |  36 ++----
>> 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)
>>=20
>>=20
>> Is that something we want?
>=20
> I fixed an error caught by the address sanitizer in CI [1] and am =
uploading a
> new patchset.  The only change is to 2 lines in
> v2-0005-Handle-pg_get_expr-default-args-in-system_functio.patch to =
update a
> call to pg_get_expr with the correct number of arguments in =
tablecmds.c.
>=20
> Regards,
> Mark
>=20
> [1] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6109065824174080
> --
> Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
> EDB https://enterprisedb.com
> =
<v2-0001-Handle-pg_get_ruledef-default-args-in-system_func.patch><v2-0002-=
Handle-pg_get_viewdef-default-args-in-system_func.patch><v2-0003-Handle-pg=
_get_indexdef-default-args-in-system_fun.patch><v2-0004-Handle-pg_get_cons=
traintdef-default-args-in-syste.patch><v2-0005-Handle-pg_get_expr-default-=
args-in-system_functio.patch><v2-0006-Handle-pg_get_triggerdef-default-arg=
s-in-system_f.patch>

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the patch. After reviewing it, I have mixed feelings. =46rom =
one side, it removes some redundant code, which is good. In the other =
side, I doubt if we should delete proc entries from pg_proc.c? Say, =
there is a view that uses a proc to be deleted, the proc OID is stored =
with the view, then after an upgrade, the view would be broken. =46rom =
this perspective, should we retain the old proc entries and only point =
them to the new functions?

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/