From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump does not dump domain not-null constraint's comments |
Date: | 2025-09-13 11:59:29 |
Message-ID: | 202509131159.p74ngjfov4l6@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Sep-12, Noah Misch wrote:
> The last argument gives the dump object on which the comment has a dependency.
> Since this is the case of a separately-dumped constraint, the comment needs to
> depend on that constraint (coninfo), not on the domain (tyinfo):
>
> - coninfo->dobj.catId, 0, tyinfo->dobj.dumpId);
> + coninfo->dobj.catId, 0, coninfo->dobj.dumpId);
>
> I didn't encounter a failure from this, but sufficient restore parallelism
> might reach a failure. A failure would look like a "does not exist" error in
> the COMMENT command, due to the constraint not yet existing.
> dumpTableConstraintComment() is an older case that optimally handles the last
> dumpComment() arg.
Sounds sane.
> In the absence of objections, I'll make it so.
Please do, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-09-13 12:07:33 | Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-09-13 09:35:35 | Re: High CPU consumption in cascade replication with large number of walsenders |