On 2025-10-14 Tu 5:29 PM, Philip Alger wrote:
Apologies, I forgot to add a new version of the patch with the
documentation change.
This is my first time doing this.
your documentation and the function's comment specifically say
that the
function take a trigger name and a table name, so it should
not use
regclass type, which allows OID as input as well.
Thanks for pointing that out in the documentation.
I think the regclass type actually makes it easier to use because
you can input a name or OID, but you're right in that it is
essentially 'table_name'::regclass::oid. However, isn't the point
of the regclass type to make it easier to do table lookups? In
that case, using a name seems easier.
I think you should change the documentation. It seems better to use the
regfoo types where available to save a lot a code duplication.
There is already a family of pg_get_[xxx]def functions
available in
PostgreSQL. pg_get_triggerdef() being one of them and it
already can take
OID as input and output the same text, so regclass type is not
necessary.
True, but you have to look for the trigger OID. If you have more
than one table using the same trigger name, then you have to
figure that out as well. Using names over OIDs seems more
intuitive and less error prone than having to look up all the OIDs
in my opinion. Also, having the added option of using an OID as
well shouldn't be frowned upon since that's what it's using under
the hood with regclass, but I understand what you're saying about
pg_get_triggerdef(OID) doing the same thing with the OID only.
Yes, what this function buys us anything is that you don't need to get
the trigger OID.
The term "DDL statement" may be a little misleading here, it
does not return
the actual DDL statements executed to create the trigger. The
documentation for
"pg_get_triggerdef" calls this statement as follows :
"the creating command for a trigger. (This is a decompiled
reconstruction,
not the original text of the command.)"
True, Cary. Appreciate calling that out. I can fix that in the
documentation as well.
by "DDL statement" we mean a statement that would create the object as
it exists now if it were not already present, not the original creation
statement. I don't think we need to state that all over the place.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
