Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess
Date: 2012-06-21 22:25:44
Message-ID: 23326.1340317544@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If I'm understanding you correctly, fixing the bogus dependency thing is
> more an insurance policy than fixing a case (other than the constraint
> dependency) that is known to be broken.

Right. That's the only *known* broken case, and it does seem like
we'd have heard by now about others. Also, what I have in mind will
cause at least HEAD, and however far we back-patch it, to actively
complain if it runs into a case where the sections can't be separated,
rather than silently outputting items in a funny order as now. So
if there are any more cases lurking I think we'll hear about them
quickly, and then we can evaluate whether further backpatching is
required.

> (There's another bug to do with parallel pg_restore and clustering that
> Andrew Hammond raised back in January, that I want to fix when I get
> some time.)

Hm, I guess I've forgotten that one?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-06-21 22:43:09 Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-06-21 22:23:57 Re: [PATCH 04/16] Add embedded list interface (header only)