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

Re: pg_dump --split patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch
Date: 2010-12-29 00:24:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> wrote:
>> I didn't include the arguments in the file name, as it would lead to very
>> long file names unless truncated, and since the problem is very limited, I
>> think we shouldn't include it. It's cleaner with just the name part of the
>> tag in the file name.

> Why not place all overloads of a function within the same file? Then,
> assuming you order them deterministically within that file, we sidestep the
> file naming issue and maintain useful diff capabilities, since a diff of the
> function's file will show additions or removals of various overloaded
> versions.

If you've solved the deterministic-ordering problem, then this entire
patch is quite useless.  You can just run a normal dump and diff it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-29 00:29:42
Subject: Re: Revised patches to add table function support to PL/Tcl (TODO item)
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-12-28 23:33:09
Subject: Re: SSI SLRU strategy choices

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group