From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)kick(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump |
Date: | 2000-06-30 01:46:58 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20000630114658.00926430@mail.rhyme.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 20:30 29/06/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Oh, you're right, it does not. So you'd first have to run through the
>table and verify that the constraint holds for each existing tuple.
>Doesn't seem like a big deal though...
>
Does this mean somebody is likely to do it? It'd certainly make
backup/restore more reliable.
I'm almost at the point of asking for testers with the revised
pg_dump/pg_restore, so I'll go with what I have for now, but it would make
life a lot less messy. Since the new version *allows* table restoration
intermixed with metadata, and in any order, I need to update pg_class
repeatedly (I assume there may be system triggers that need to execute when
metadata is changed).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-30 01:48:04 | Re: Installation layout |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-30 01:31:33 | Re: Changes to handling version numbers internally |