Re: insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files

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.

regards, tom lane