Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> >> As I recall, one thing people did not want was for pg_dump to plaster
> >> WITH OIDS or WITHOUT OIDS on every single CREATE TABLE, as this would
> >> pretty much destroy any shot at loading PG dumps into any other
> >> database.
> > Ummm...what about SERIAL columns, ALTER TABLE / SET STATS, SET STORAGE,
> > custom types, 'btree' in CREATE INDEX, SET SEARCH_PATH, '::" cast operator,
> > stored procedures, rules, etc. - how is adding WITH OIDS going to change
> > that?!
> It's moving in the wrong direction. We've been slowly eliminating
> unnecessary nonstandardisms in pg_dump output; this puts in a new one
> in a quite fundamental place. You could perhaps expect another DB
> to drop commands it didn't understand like SET SEARCH_PATH ... but if
> it drops all your CREATE TABLEs, you ain't got much dump left to load.
Why was the schema path called search_path rather than schema_path?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-03-06 21:13:12|
|Subject: Re: OIDs as keys|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-03-06 20:18:56|
|Subject: Re: Index File growing big.|