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

Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
Date: 2001-01-07 18:04:40
Message-ID: 4534.978890680@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
>> Is this OK? Or inappropriate for beta?

> From Tatsuo's example, it looks critical enough that it should be fixed
> before release, and since its a 'support program' issue, not a 'core
> server' issue, ramifications of fixing it aren't as big as if it was a
> 'core server' issue ... go for it

I concur.  This is not a new feature, but a bug fix, and therefore it's
appropriate to do it during beta.  We don't require beta-period bug
fixes to be the smallest possible change that cures the problem.  They
should be good fixes if practical.

One issue however is how confident are we of the alter table add
constraint code?  I'm not sure it's been exercised enough to justify
making pg_dump rely on it ... is anyone willing to spend some time
testing that statement?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-07 18:08:56
Subject: Re: Quite strange crash
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-01-07 16:50:42
Subject: Re: A post-7.1 wish-list.

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