| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2023-02-27 18:04:16 |
| Message-ID: | 391720.1677521056@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Sure, but I was responding to your assertion that there's no case in
> which --load-via-partition-root could cause a restore failure. I'm not
> sure that's accurate.
Perhaps it's not, but it's certainly far less likely to cause a restore
failure than the behavior I want to replace.
More to the current point perhaps, I doubt that it's likely enough to
cause a restore failure to justify the existing docs warning. There
may have been a time when the warning was justified, but I don't believe
it today.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-02-27 18:24:38 | Re: SLRUs in the main buffer pool - Page Header definitions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-27 17:55:01 | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |