Re: PgQ and pg_dump

From: Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PgQ and pg_dump
Date: 2016-06-15 10:19:49
Message-ID: CAPdiE1xwH8cY9WTUW6zvoeuO3uOqADQ+XN+V9p729gW=+G8T9w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Hi Michael,

2016-06-15 5:00 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Martin wrote:
>> I wonder if this is the desirable way of handling pgq, or if those
>> tables should be dumped. I'm starting to think that this is a PgQ bug,
>> or maybe it's not a good idea to install PgQ as an extension.
>
> As I am looking at that I would qualify that as a bug in pg_dump.
> Schemas can be part of the extension definition and be linked to it,
> and tables created on top of the schema defined in the extension
> should really be dumped..

How would the recovery process work? We expect the schema to be there
when restoring the tables?

That seems sensible.

I'll file a bug report later and maybe move this thread to -hackers.

Regards,

--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-06-15 10:56:09 Question about RUM-index
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-15 08:00:10 Re: PgQ and pg_dump

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2016-06-15 12:02:15 Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ?
Previous Message amul sul 2016-06-15 09:33:41 Re: Bug in to_timestamp().