| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Date: | 2000-11-09 14:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 200011091436.JAA01260@jupiter.jw.home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Do we still need the lastsysoid column in pg_database if we do things
> this way? Seems like what you really want is to suppress all the
> objects that are in template0, so you really only need one lastsysoid
> value, namely template0's. The other entries are useless AFAICS.
>
> regards, tom lane
Right. All we dump after having a non-accessible template0 is
the difference to that. So that a dump will create it's
database from that template0 (no matter wherever it was
created from originally) and "patch" it (i.e. restoring all
diffs) to look like at dump time.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-11-09 14:36:46 | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-11-09 14:20:57 | Re: Text concat problem |