Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: 2023-03-18 01:06:43
Message-ID: 20230318010643.o4idvzy35eoeinx7@jrouhaud
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 01:44:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 08:43:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think the odds of that yielding a usable dump are nil, so I don't
> >> see why we should bother.
> > No objection from me.
> OK, pushed with the discussed changes.

Great news, thanks a lot!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-03-18 01:09:05 Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-03-18 00:58:43 Re: meson issue? ninja clean doesn't drop queryjumblefuncs.funcs.c