Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?!

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?!
Date: 2012-01-31 15:54:28
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers

On 01/30/2012 11:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ example showing pg_dump's odd behavior for extension config tables ]
> [ traces through that with gdb... ]
> As I suspected, the behavioral change from 9.1 to HEAD is not
> intentional. It is an artifact of commit
> 7b070e896ca835318c90b02c830a5c4844413b64, which is almost, but not
> quite, entirely broken. I won't enumerate its shortcomings here,
> because they're not really relevant, but it does seem appropriate to
> discuss exactly what we think *should* happen for tables created inside
> extensions.
I'm perplexed about what you thing the patch does wrong or how it affects this. If I've broken something I'd like to know how, exactly, so I have a chance to fix it.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gabriele Bartolini 2012-01-31 15:55:42 Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2012-01-31 15:35:35 Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nykolyn, Andy (AS) 2012-01-31 16:08:24 Intermittent occurrence of ERROR: could not open relation
Previous Message Tulio 2012-01-31 15:10:36 Re: parameter "vacuum_defer_cleanup_age"