| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Ordering of pg_dump output |
| Date: | 2000-02-09 00:21:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3986.950055668@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The problem with a pure oid-based ordering concept is that (as you
> yourself pointed out) it won't work if you alter some object in question
> after creation. The obvious case would be an alter function (to be
> implemented), but another case is (probably) alter column set default (is
> implemented).
Right; a genuine dependency analysis would be better. Also a lot more
painful to implement.
As you say, pg_dump could do with a wholesale rewrite, and maybe that
would be a good time to look at the dependency-based approach. In the
meantime, I think dumping in OID order would fix 90% of the problem for
10% of the work...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-09 00:22:57 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY from file |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-09 00:12:50 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY from file |