| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Christof Petig <christof(at)petig-baender(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity |
| Date: | 2001-12-12 23:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200112122319.fBCNJBI02673@saturn.jw.home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jan Wieck writes:
>
> > We don't want to define the constraints with ALTER TABLE
> > because this means checking data on restore that doesn't need
> > to be checked at all (in theory). If he has a crash of a
> > critical system and restores from a dump, I bet the farm that
> > he wants it FAST.
>
> Um, if he has a *crash* of a *critical* system, doesn't he want his data
> checked before he puts it back online?
The data came (in theory!!!) from an intact, consistent
database. So the dump content is (theoretically) known to be
consistent, thus no check required.
The difference between theory and practice? There is none,
theoretically :-)
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 #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2001-12-13 00:30:10 | Re: [GENERAL] ACK table corrupted, unique index violated. |
| Previous Message | Permaine Cheung | 2001-12-12 23:07:06 | Re: Third call for platform testing |