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

Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 18:32:39
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.31.0101071432110.21326-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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...

Agreed ... we almost need a regression test for pg_dump itself :)



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: bpalmerDate: 2001-01-07 19:05:44
Subject: Re: CVS regression test failure on OBSD
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-07 18:29:31
Subject: Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump

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