public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
To: Euler Taveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: japin <[email protected]>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:24:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGECzQTjKgAF1rRG446aP0yoAnXHP8-KrunZW_roZWj5H6Xxdw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAN4CZFNYM5jNA_gLu9miAXg_7c8Z2zf-ePc+0rzidAV3CBs=cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<SY7PR01MB10921A6E1E08A48F3426FE529B651A@SY7PR01MB10921.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAKFQuwYcppypeGBwa7ZbDAfoUXSv+kLhJuAXsdwBmKrvy8wDFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGECzQRyh9Yf87sMgBaYjaas7yx5R91ga5JjJxAx3W_Uu8BfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 19:10, Euler Taveira <[email protected]> wrote:
> although we already use this style
> in some of the backend functions -- e.g. pg_logical_slot_*_changes()).

Thanks for the additional context. I didn't know about
pg_logical_slot_*_changes using this style. I searched the docs
locally and cannot find any other functions that use this style. I
think what makes pg_logical_slot_*_changes special, is that it passes
these options to the plugin. The plugin can define any valid options,
and postgres core cannot know what they are. I think this approach
makes sense for those functions because of that, but the ddl functions
don't pass the options to a plugin, so that argument does not apply
here.

> I also consider your approach but decided not to use it. The argument against
> named arguments is that you cannot add new argument *without* a DEFAULT value;
> if you do, all existing functions will fail.

I'm not sure what kind of change you're referring to here. I don't
understand how variadic options allow you to add a required argument
to an existing function without breaking existing callers. Could you
give a concrete example of a change that the VARIADIC allows, but the
named arguments don't?

> You also need to create another
> function with a different list of arguments to support a new option.

I don't understand this either. We often add new optional arguments to
existing functions in a new major release. e.g. pg_start_backup got
the exclusive argument in PG9.6. Or do you mean something else here?

view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
  In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQTjKgAF1rRG446aP0yoAnXHP8-KrunZW_roZWj5H6Xxdw@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox