Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> * Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
>>> for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
>>> meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
>>> someone else would like to take a look? This is an open item, so we
>>> should really try to deal with it.
>> Yeah, I think this is a "must fix for alpha" item. Will look at it
>> tomorrow, god willin an the creek don't rise (or, given the weather
>> around here: the power stays on).
> I've applied that patch after some revisions.
> The only thing still showing as open in the CommitFest webpage is
> the last plperl patch. I think that's actually done but not marked
> as committed; Andrew?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-18 03:05:08|
|Subject: Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?|
|Previous:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2010-02-18 01:58:14|
|Subject: Re: Large object dumps vs older pg_restore|