Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> At 22:26 5/03/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, is it a feature at all? Or a bug? ISTM poor
>> form for a data-only restore to assume it may turn off all pre-existing
> Do you recall any of the history - why was it added in the first place?
No, I don't recall. It might be worth digging in the archives.
> I vaguely recall something about doing a schema restore then data
> restore. In this case, you need to disable triggers, but maybe that
> should be an option only. ie. default to no messing with pg_class, but
> if the user requests it, output code to disable triggers.
Well, mumble. I guess the question is what are the triggers going to
*do*? If they are going to cross-check against tables that may not be
restored yet, then you have a problem if you don't turn them off. OTOH
it's easy to imagine that this may allow you to load inconsistent data.
'Tis a puzzlement.
For now, I'd be happy if the normal case of a simple restore doesn't
generate warnings. Improving on that probably takes more thought and
risk than we should be putting in at the end of beta.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Lamar Owen||Date: 2001-03-06 03:44:36|
|Subject: Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-03-06 03:35:28|
|Subject: Re: mailing list messages|