Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and more

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: terry(at)terrym(dot)com (Terry Mackintosh)
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump and more
Date: 1998-10-07 02:50:38
Message-ID: 199810070250.WAA07653@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hi Jan and all
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Bruce: Would you please apply the patch at the end?
> >
> > Terry: Sorry, but dumping views is covered completely by this
> > approach for dumping rewrite rules.
>
> Sounds good, I really don't mind that what I did does not get used.
> For it seems that I blow on the right coal and a fire started.

I like this sentence.

> Dumping of views and such has been lacking for WAY TOO LONG.
> And it sounds like even more came out of all of this then any of us would
> have thought.

Yes, though I knew Jan had this up his sleeve, and it was on the open
items list.

I have removed the mention of the rules limitation in pg_dump man pages
and sgml.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-10-07 03:20:58 Open 6.4 items
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-10-07 02:41:21 Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)