| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:02:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobF7EwMQ0bR3ZPKdtuVa7jkixWQpm3AX6jwv6YD041EFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, that's a user error not pg_dump's fault. Particularly so for hash
> partitioning, where there is no defensible reason to make the partitions
> semantically different.
I am still of the opinion that you're going down a dangerous path of
redefining pg_dump's mission from "dump and restore the database, as
it actually exists" to "dump and restore the database, unless the user
did something that I think is silly".
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2023-02-27 17:07:23 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-27 16:59:20 | Re: Stale references to guc.c in comments/tests |