| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: current is broken |
| Date: | 2000-09-15 02:23:12 |
| Message-ID: | 18468.968984592@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> The only thing that's missing is a 'rulekind' for rules - it would be very
> nice if pg_dump could use a simple method (that didn't involve munging
> names) to determin is a rule is a 'view rule'.
Oh, I finally see the problem: when you come to dump out the rules, you
need to avoid dumping the rules that correspond to views because you're
going to emit the CREATE VIEW commands separately.
You don't really need a rulekind though. If it's an ON SELECT rule for
a relation that you've determined to be a view, then the rule is a
view rule. Otherwise, you print the rule.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-15 02:36:16 | RE: current is broken |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-15 02:16:02 | Re: pg_dump of regression (again) |