| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OPERATOR FAMILY and pg_dump |
| Date: | 2011-09-07 16:10:04 |
| Message-ID: | 23896.1315411804@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Abbate <jma(at)freedomcircle(dot)com> writes:
> If a basic operator family is created, e.g.,
> create operator family of1 using btree;
> shouldn't pg_dump include this in its output? If not, why?
Quoting from the pg_dump source code:
* We want to dump the opfamily only if (1) it contains "loose" operators
* or functions, or (2) it contains an opclass with a different name or
* owner. Otherwise it's sufficient to let it be created during creation
* of the contained opclass, and not dumping it improves portability of
* the dump.
I guess if it contains no opclasses and no operators either, this code
won't dump it, but isn't it rather useless in such a case?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-09-07 16:19:16 | Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-07 16:05:40 | Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem |