From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using ALTER TABLESPACE in pg_dump |
Date: | 2004-10-18 16:27:39 |
Message-ID: | 26374.1098116859@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> One additional idea for this item is to use CREATE to first create the
> object, then move it using ALTER, and the ALTER might fail if the
> tablespace doesn't exist.
This seems fairly impractical, at least for indexes where there is no
way to do the ALTER before the object is filled with data.
> If we add a new SET variable and use it in pg_dump we will have to
> support it forever even if there is no practical use for it.
Yeah, that's one thing that bothers me.
> One interesting side-affect of allowing tablespace specification to fail
> is that it might give users enough control that we can mark this item as
> done:
Hmm, here's a variant idea: how about a GUC variable named something like
"soft_tablespace_specs" which when TRUE would mean that a nonexistent
tablespace name in a TABLESPACE clause is ignored (maybe with a WARNING)
rather than being an error, and so the object is created in whatever the
default tablespace for it would be. You wouldn't even necessarily want
to have pg_dump set this true for itself, but people could turn it on
when they needed to load a dump with wrong tablespace names in it.
(If we didn't have pg_dump turn it on automatically, then we'd not be
beholden to support it forever.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Wong | 2004-10-18 16:27:55 | Re: spinlocks: generalizing "non-locking test" |
Previous Message | Tham Paudel | 2004-10-18 16:09:29 | organisation of directory |