|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:02:29AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:54:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Command was: DROP DATABASE "template1";
> > Uh, the oid of the template1 database is 1, and I assume we would want
> > to preserve that too.
> I don't feel any huge attachment to that. In the first place, under
> this proposal recreating template1 is something you would only need to do
> if you weren't satisfied with its default properties as set by initdb.
> Which ought to be a minority of users. In the second place, if you are
> changing those properties from the way initdb set it up, it's not really
> virgin template1 anymore, so why shouldn't it have a new OID?
Oh, I see what you mean. I was just worried that some code might expect
template1 to always have an oid of 1, but we can just call that code
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Pavel Stehule||2018-01-23 16:08:56||Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2018-01-23 15:37:11||Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL|