Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess
Date: 2012-06-23 23:44:36
Message-ID: 4FE654E4.9070609@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06/22/2012 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Anyway, the attached patch does seem to fix the constraint bug.

Looks sane to me.

>
> A possible objection to it is that there are now three different ways in
> which the pg_dump code knows which DO_XXX object types go in which dump
> section: the new addBoundaryDependencies() function knows this, the
> SECTION_xxx arguments to ArchiveEntry calls know it, and the sort
> ordering constants in pg_dump_sort.c have to agree too. My original
> idea was to add an explicit section field to DumpableObject to reduce
> the number of places that know this, but that would increase pg_dump's
> memory consumption still more, and yet still not give us a single point
> of knowledge. Has anybody got a better idea?

Not off hand.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-06-24 03:01:56 Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA
Previous Message Dave Page 2012-06-23 23:28:29 Re: new --maintenance-db options