| From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump -s dumps data?! |
| Date: | 2012-02-02 11:24:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20120202112400.GA13401@depesz.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 10:02:14PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> The case for a table that is partly user data and partly extension data
> is very thin, I think that if I had this need I would use inheritance
> and a CHECK(user_data is true/false) constraint to filter the data.
definitely agree. i.e. i don't really see a case when we'd have data
from both extension, and normal usage, in the same table.
and the overhead of tracking source of data seems to be excessive.
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | bdmytrak@eranet.pl | 2012-02-02 11:30:48 | Deadlock report |
| Previous Message | Saurabh | 2012-02-02 10:26:13 | Facing issue in online recovery of pgpool-II |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-02-02 11:44:01 | Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup() |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2012-02-02 11:23:02 | Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup() |