MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CANxoLDdJsRJqnjMXV3yjsk07Z5iRWxG-c2hZJC7bAKqf8ZXj_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDffrZGRTGpW_sPQ-hPEYs0hgjaFgJQh3PJFpPu5Zsbgvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <177997571870.313758.10720313850275742354.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <CANxoLDe7xiCWY-UEmzoK_uQdKh3PPNcGXJ3qdzFy3c0o_F+P_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <SY7PR01MB1092118DD149062E230159D89B6162@SY7PR01MB10921.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAF0whuefRgV3_xgMhPoKaid1LN34CTLhTU-r5dgfFyEGVAFrPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDfBQn+q32DKo5yvb63eD+965umMi8zxqqV8GcsxdN6Trg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDf80gXFLSqWM7d-idA=Grot49HsmP9YXZw49nCFe+Mi+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDeqR6wVCoXjsEWv4M_mhng-GCtt1KxFdfM-8PKwushUCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDcQyd=ojcmLCmU5zFT8j475AbXHpjSWHoVP4a5-vdY3Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF0whue4v=bH8beH0sBxu9UoFKRcZHTW-zH0qeVEt0jW2x7JiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANxoLDd+Pfi=Do-+1ECG-eZg4=DXfxuUK+yX1KhjAMnQzyidwQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANxoLDd+Pfi=Do-+1ECG-eZg4=DXfxuUK+yX1KhjAMnQzyidwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: solai v <solai.cdac@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 17:01:36 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAF0whuc22Tdf-V=1g21jgmKG0YiGk3ZhLoO7Ttog6tD5P91a2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_policy_ddl() function to reconstruct CREATE
 POLICY statement
To: Akshay Joshi <akshay.joshi@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Ilmar Y <tanswis42@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAF0whuc22Tdf-V%3D1g21jgmKG0YiGk3ZhLoO7Ttog6tD5P91a2Q%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi all,

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 4:01=E2=80=AFPM Akshay Joshi
<akshay.joshi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 2:44=E2=80=AFPM solai v <solai.cdac@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 4:48=E2=80=AFPM Akshay Joshi
>> <akshay.joshi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I've updated the patch to align with the interface change introduced b=
y commit d6ed87d1989 (Andrew Dunstan, 2026-06-26 "Use named boolean paramet=
ers for pg_get_*_ddl option arguments").
>> >
>> > That commit replaced the VARIADIC text[] alternating key/value option =
interface with typed named boolean parameters across pg_get_role_ddl(), pg_=
get_tablespace_ddl(), and pg_get_database_ddl(), removing the DdlOption/par=
se_ddl_options() machinery in favour of direct PG_GETARG_BOOL() calls.
>> >
>> > Updated patch v14 is ready for review/commit.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I reviewed and tested the v14 patch on the latest master. The patch
>> applied cleanly, built successfully, and passed make check without any
>> regression failures. I verified the new function signature and
>> confirmed that pg_get_policy_ddl() now uses the new interface with the
>> boolean DEFAULT false argument. Also I tested the function with a
>> variety of row-level security policies, including: Basic policy
>> reconstruction, PERMISSIVE and RESTRICTIVE policies, Different command
>> types (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), Policies with multiple roles
>> and the PUBLIC role, Quoted table, policy, and role names, USING and
>> WITH CHECK clauses, Complex expressions including EXISTS, nested
>> subqueries, CASE expressions, COALESCE, ANY/ALL operators, and boolean
>> expressions, NULL inputs, invalid relation names, and non-existent
>> policies. The generated DDL was correct as per the intent, and the
>> expected errors were verified for the invalid inputs. I also verified
>> that the generated DDL is executable by dropping an existing policy,
>> recreating it using the output of pg_get_policy_ddl(), and confirming
>> that the recreated policy was reconstructed successfully again by the
>> function.
>> One observation I noted is that for policies using default attributes
>> (TO PUBLIC and AS PERMISSIVE), the generated DDL omits those clauses
>> and produces a semantically equivalent statement which seems
>> intentional but thought of sending it here for further clarification.
>> Overall, I did not encounter any functional issues during testing. The
>> patch looks good to me and worked as expected in all the scenarios I
>> tested.
>
>
>     Yes, it's intentional for all pg_get_***_ddl functions. Clause with d=
efaults won't be reconstructed.
>>
>>

Ok. Thank you for the clarification.

Regards,
Solai