| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
| Date: | 2010-02-08 13:23:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20100208132311.GA4113@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Takahiro Itagaki escribió:
>
> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> > > default: both contents and metadata
> > > --data-only: same
> > > --schema-only: neither
> >
> > However, it means only large object performs an exceptional object class
> > that dumps its owner, acl and comment even if --data-only is given.
> > Is it really what you suggested, isn't it?
>
> I wonder we still need to have both "BLOB ITEM" and "BLOB DATA"
> even if we will take the all-or-nothing behavior. Can we handle
> BLOB's owner, acl, comment and data with one entry kind?
I don't think this is necessarily a good idea. We might decide to treat
both things separately in the future and it having them represented
separately in the dump would prove useful.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-08 13:34:06 | Re: Hot standby documentation |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-08 13:15:32 | Re: Pathological regexp match |