From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions |
Date: | 2012-11-02 14:50:35 |
Message-ID: | m2ehkcrrd0.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think it may be time to bite the bullet and change that (including
>> breaking dumpSequence() into two separate functions). I'm a little bit
>> worried about the compatibility implications of back-patching such a
>> change, though. Is it likely that anybody out there is depending on the
>> fact that, eg, pg_dump --section=pre-data currently includes SEQUENCE SET
>> items? Personally I think it's more likely that that'd be seen as a
>> bug, but ...
FWIW, +1
> Specifically, I'm thinking this, which looks rather bulky but most of
> the diff is from reindenting the guts of dumpSequence().
I see that you commited that patch, thanks a lot Tom!
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-11-02 14:51:37 | Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-02 14:41:14 | Re: Bug in ALTER COLUMN SET DATA TYPE ? |