| From: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump pretty_print |
| Date: | 2007-01-26 14:08:50 |
| Message-ID: | 57777b8d126d1f02471da7f0cdfa8a82@biglumber.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Peter Eisentraut replied:
> The harm here is that under undefined circumstances a dump file
> will not be a proper and robust representation of the original
> database, which would add significant confusion and potential for error.
What "undefined circumstances" are we talking here? If there is a chance
that pg_get_viewdef and company do not output a version that can be
read again by the database because we simply changed the whitespace, that
sounds like a serious bug to be fixed, not a reason to reject this
optional flag.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200701251003
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFFuXd2vJuQZxSWSsgRA9VDAJ9S1b+4DJomO3Bmij4wvida9wtgfgCeID16
qeoNrrehtTGIeJeL8T+mx9M=
=VecV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-01-26 14:09:27 | Re: Proposal: Snapshot cloning |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-26 13:53:32 | HAVING push-down |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-01-26 15:01:12 | Docs improvements |
| Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2007-01-26 12:11:56 | uuid patch 3.0 (8.3devel) |