Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date: 2005-12-19 03:03:27
Message-ID: 13727.1134961407@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I once considered implementing this myself but found it infeasible for 
> some reason I don't remember.  Nevertheless I always thought that 
> having an atomic restore ought to be a non-optional feature.  Are there 
> situations where one would not want to use it?

Absolutely.  As a nontrivial example, I *very* often load dumps sent to
me by other people which are full of GRANT/REVOKE commands referencing
users that don't exist in my installation.  Since, most of the time,
I don't particularly care about the ownership/privileges of the tables
involved, having to create those users would just be a PITA.

More generally, the pg_dump output has always been designed around the
assumption that failed commands are non-fatal.  Look at all those
unportable SET commands that we don't give you an option to omit.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2005-12-19 03:03:40
Subject: Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-19 02:21:56
Subject: Test, please ignore

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group