On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Yeah, we probably ought to make more of an effort to regenerate the >>> original query wording. I do not think that forcing positional notation >>> is a suitable answer in this case, because it would result in converting >>> SQL-standard queries to nonstandard ones. > >> Who cares? The other end is presumptively PostgresSQL, because this >> is postgres_fdw. > > No, you missed the context. Yes, the original problem is in postgres_fdw, > and there indeed it seems fine to emit GROUP BY 1,2. What Ashutosh is > pointing out is that ruleutils.c can emit a representation of a view > that fails to preserve its original semantics, thus causing dump/reload > problems that have nothing at all to do with FDWs.
Oh, woops. Sorry. > And what I'm pointing > out is that we don't like pg_dump to emit nonstandard representations > of objects that were created with perfectly standard-compliant queries; > therefore emitting GROUP BY 1,2 isn't good if the query wasn't spelled > like that to begin with. That's not an unreasonable goal, but I'm not sure how much effort I'd personally be willing to expend on it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
