Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
Date: 2017-03-06 14:01:01
Message-ID: 20170306140101.GQ9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 3/6/17 03:33, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Would this be a candidate for backpatching, or is the behaviour change
> > in pg_dump trumping the issues it solves?
>
> Unless someone literally has a materialized view on pg_policy, it
> wouldn't make a difference, so I'm not very keen on bothering to
> backpatch this.

Agreed.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-03-06 14:01:51 Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-03-06 13:57:30 Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash