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

Re: Fixing pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing pg_dump
Date: 2004-06-28 02:09:08
Message-ID: 16266.1088388548@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Actually, this brings up another point - people occasionally complain on 
> the list that pg_dump is not considered important enough :(  ie. Is 
> there any good reason we cannot backport the entire new pg_dump to the 
> 7.4 branch, and change the 3 small things that prevent its output 
> restoring to 7.4.

Lack of testing.  Maybe after 7.5 has been out for a while, we'll have
enough trust in current pg_dump to think of doing that, but on the other
hand it would be somewhat moot at that point.  The main point though is
that 7.4 is supposed to be a *stable* branch, and dropping a rewritten
pg_dump that hasn't even been through beta yet into a stable branch is
Simply Not Done.

> * Drop commands for TYPEs have 'CASCADE' on the end (has that always 
> been true)

Yeek.  That's got to be a hangover from pre-dependency-chasing days.
Let's lose it in our current output, at least.

> * I currently assume that the last two characters in a drop command are 
> ; and \n.  I'm not sure if this has always been the case.  Maybe I 
> should make it loop until it removes the trailing semi-colon.

I'd go for "remove while the last char is either ; or \n"; should cover
all cases.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-28 02:18:55
Subject: Re: Fixing pg_dump
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-06-28 02:09:01
Subject: Re: Fixing pg_dump

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