Re: pg_restore (libpq? parser?) bug in 8

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_restore (libpq? parser?) bug in 8
Date: 2004-08-12 02:42:15
Message-ID: 23283.1092278535@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> At 12:15 PM 12/08/2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why exactly does pg_restore need to parse the SQL anyway?

> It just looks for complete statements. From memory it relates to the
> possibility that TOC entries can have more than one statement, or it may
> relate to handling COPY statements. I think it has to look for
> PQresultStatus(...) == PGRES_COPY_IN for each statement it executes, so it
> needs to pass statements one at a time.

Hm. But we could assume that a COPY will be all by itself in a TOC
entry, couldn't we?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-08-12 02:43:30 Re: pg_restore (libpq? parser?) bug in 8
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-08-12 02:40:09 Re: will PITR in 8.0 be usable for "hot spare"/"log shipping" type