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

Re: [SQL] Table versions

From: Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Table versions
Date: 2003-10-29 15:36:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-sql
Thanks guys,

I had a feeling this was the case, but wasn't sure.
The one-version pg_dump looks like a winner.


=> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
=> >> What I did next, is put a trigger on pg_attribute that should, in theory,
=> >> on insert and update, fire up a function that will increment a version
=> > System tables do not use the same process for row insertion / updates as
=> > the rest of the system. You're trigger will rarely be fired.
=> s/rarely/never/.  We do not support triggers on system catalogs.  The
=> system should have done its best to prevent you from creating one ...
=> I suppose you had to hack around with a "postgres -O" standalone backend?
=> Returning to the original problem, it seems to me that comparing "pg_dump
=> -s" output is a reasonable way to proceed.  The problem of inconsistent
=> output format across pg_dump versions is a red herring --- just use a
=> single pg_dump version (the one for your newest server) for all the
=> dumps.  Recent pg_dump versions still talk to older servers, back to 7.0
=> or thereabouts.
=> 			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: JeffDate: 2003-10-29 16:03:58
Subject: pg_clog & vacuum oddness
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-29 14:30:50
Subject: Re: [SQL] Table versions

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-10-29 17:42:57
Subject: Re: Help on update that subselects other records in table, uses joins
Previous:From: Gary StainburnDate: 2003-10-29 15:36:30
Subject: Re: update from select

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