From: | "Diogo Biazus" <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: xlogdump behaviour translating dropped relations |
Date: | 2006-07-26 20:43:33 |
Message-ID: | eca519a10607261343n543f4184j63dc7e872ee9b08@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/26/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Diogo Biazus" <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm not sure about how the xlogdump should behave when translating oids
> of
> > dropped relations.
>
> I'm not sure it should be making any attempt to translate anything.
> What makes you think the oids even refer to the current database?
I'm getting a new database connection based on the dbNode of the current
xlog record. And I expect that the user informed a connection to the backend
that originated the xlog files. Is this not going to work?
I know that we can have some problem with the db user (if he does not have
access to all databases), but we can advise the user on the docs about it.
--
Diogo Biazus - diogob(at)gmail(dot)com
Móvel Consultoria
http://www.movelinfo.com.br
http://www.postgresql.org.br
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-26 20:58:44 | Re: extension for sql update |
Previous Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2006-07-26 20:41:09 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level |