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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump, problem with user defined types?

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump, problem with user defined types?
Date: 1998-09-24 02:57:37
Message-ID: 3609B521.4DB51BC3@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > pg_dump gives me back :-
> > CREATE TYPE sotime ( internallength = 2, externallength = 5,
> > input = sotime_in_18272, output = sotime_out_18304, send = sotime_out_18304,
> > receive = sotime_in_18272, default = '-',passedbyvalue);
> > CREATE TYPE _sotime ( internallength = -1, externallength = -1,
> > input = array_in_750, output = array_out_751, send = array_out_751,
> > receive = array_in_750, default = '-');
> Yes, we have a problem with user-defined types because of the changes 
> I made to make the function name unique by adding the pg_proc oid to 
> the name.
> I can make the fix, but no one seems to have an opinion on how yet.

It would seem that for Keith's cases things worked OK originally? There
was trouble with other overloaded functions?

At worst, we should revert to the non-mangled names. On a related note,
has anyone had time to try testing pg_upgrade? That would be a nice
feature for v6.4 if it worked on a wide range of databases (haven't
tried it myself yet).

                    - Tom

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-09-24 06:03:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump, problem with user defined types?
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-09-24 02:34:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] 2 questions.

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