From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_dump/restore -o |
Date: | 2002-01-18 04:34:09 |
Message-ID: | 4071.1011328449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given a pg_dump archive containing OIDs, I would expect a schema-only
>> pg_restore followed by a data-only pg_restore to produce the same end
>> result as a schema+data restore, no?
> That is the big question, if they are doing a schema-only restore, will
> then then do a data-only restore, or will they not. My guess is that
> they will not or they would have just restored the whole thing.
> The downside of setting the oid counter on schema-only is that you have
> set the counter much higher than they may have wanted, especially if
> they are doing the schema-only restore to somehow get the counter down
> again. The downside of _not_ setting the oid counter on schema-only is
> that they may have duplicate oids between system and user tables. That
> seems less of a risk than the former, and much less likely to happen.
Good points. So I guess you are saying it would be okay to treat the
setMaxOid TOC item as data, and have it appear only in schema+data or
data-only restores. In that case, back to plan A.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-18 04:36:32 | Re: Bug in pg_dump/restore -o |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-18 04:30:43 | Re: Bug in pg_dump/restore -o |