Thread: Unqualified pg_catalog casts in pg_dump
When looking at something different, I happened to notice that pg_dump is a bit inconsistent in how it qualifies casts to pg_catalog entities like regclass and oid. Most casts are qualified, but not all. Even though it functionally is the same, being consistent is a good thing IMO and I can't see a reason not to, so the attached patch adds qualifications (the unqualified regclass cast in the TAP test left on purpose). cheers ./daniel
Attachment
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: > When looking at something different, I happened to notice that pg_dump is a bit > inconsistent in how it qualifies casts to pg_catalog entities like regclass and > oid. Most casts are qualified, but not all. Even though it functionally is > the same, being consistent is a good thing IMO and I can't see a reason not to, > so the attached patch adds qualifications (the unqualified regclass cast in the > TAP test left on purpose). While this used to be important before we made pg_dump force a minimal search_path, I'm not sure that there's any point in being picky about it anymore. (psql's describe.c is a different story though.) regards, tom lane
> On 23 Mar 2020, at 17:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >> When looking at something different, I happened to notice that pg_dump is a bit >> inconsistent in how it qualifies casts to pg_catalog entities like regclass and >> oid. Most casts are qualified, but not all. Even though it functionally is >> the same, being consistent is a good thing IMO and I can't see a reason not to, >> so the attached patch adds qualifications (the unqualified regclass cast in the >> TAP test left on purpose). > > While this used to be important before we made pg_dump force a minimal > search_path, I'm not sure that there's any point in being picky about > it anymore. (psql's describe.c is a different story though.) Correct, there is no functional importance with this. IMO the value is in readability and grep-ability. cheers ./daniel
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 05:57:37PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Correct, there is no functional importance with this. IMO the value is in > readability and grep-ability. This may cause extra conflicts when back-patching. -- Michael