Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: 2023-02-02 12:56:22
Message-ID: a7ef6212-f9fe-6826-9640-5dac54327140@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2023-02-01 We 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Anyway, after re-reading the old thread I wonder if my first instinct
> (force --load-via-partition-root for enum hash cases only) was the
> best compromise after all. I'm not sure how painful it is to get
> pg_dump to detect such cases, but it's probably possible.
>
>

Given the other problems you enumerated upthread, I'd be more inclined
to go with your other suggestion of
"--load-via-partition-root=on/off/auto" (with the default presumably
"auto").

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2023-02-02 13:13:16 Move defaults toward ICU in 16?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-02-02 12:29:42 Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine