Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:42:23 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Hans Buschmann <buschmann@nidsa.net>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Assorted improvements in pg_dump
Message-ID: <202110252042.wyr6xsa42atg@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4167039.1635192154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202110252042.wyr6xsa42atg%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote:

> Yeah, I wasn't too happy with the static bools either.  However, each
> function would need its own field in the struct, which seems like a
> maintenance annoyance, plus a big hazard for future copy-and-paste
> changes (ie, copy and paste the wrong flag name -> trouble).  Also
> the Archive struct is shared between dump and restore cases, so
> adding a dozen fields that are irrelevant for restore didn't feel
> right.  So I'd like a better idea, but I'm not sure that that one
> is better.

What about a separate struct passed from pg_dump's main() to the
functions that execute queries, containing a bunch of bools?  This'd
still have the problem that mindless copy and paste would cause a bug,
but I wonder if that isn't overstated: if you use the wrong flag,
pg_dump would fail as soon as you try to invoke your query when it
hasn't been prepared yet.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I'm impressed how quickly you are fixing this obscure issue. I came from 
MS SQL and it would be hard for me to put into words how much of a better job
you all are doing on [PostgreSQL]."
 Steve Midgley, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-08/msg00000.php