Re: insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

Hi Peter,

On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human
>>> consumption, not strictly part of the archive format.
>
>> Hm, the TOC entry, with its tag changed, is part of the dump, and this
>> is written in the archive, but the shape of TocEntry does not change
>> so this is really debatable.
>
> I had in mind that we would add a separate field for tag's schema name to
> TocEntry, which surely would require an archive format number bump.
> As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
> need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is
> whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for
> automated processing of tags --- it's easy to think of cases in which the
> schema/object name separation would be ambiguous. So is the tag really
> "strictly for human consumption"? I'm not sure about that.

It looks like there is still some discussion to be had here about
whether a "human readable" solution is enough.

Until that's resolved I've marked this patch "Waiting on Author".

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net