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 18:29:31
Message-ID: 4663.978892171@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Essentially, worst case scenario, we are going from 'broken->broken' ...

No, I don't think so.  The current pg_dump code is only broken if
you've renamed a column involved in a foreign-key dependency (if I
understood the thread correctly).  But Philip is proposing to change
pg_dump to rely on alter table add constraint for *all* PRIMARY KEY
constructs.  So if alter table add constraint fails, it could break
cases that had nothing to do with either foreign keys or renamed
columns.

I'm not really arguing not to make the change.  I am saying there's
an area here that we'd better take care to test during beta cycle...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2001-01-07 18:32:39
Subject: Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2001-01-07 18:18:46
Subject: Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump

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