Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 12978.1232056888@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | pg_dump versus views and opclasses ("Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> I recently had pg_dump produce a non-restorable dump for one of my
> databases. I can't share the dump itself, but I can describe what
> went wrong. ...
> * It seems there's no pg_depend entry for
> types/functions/operators/opclasses that the view depends on, unless
> they are part of the SELECT list.
What PG version exactly? We've been moving towards fuller
representation of the semantics in the parse tree over time,
so that's a very relevant question.
FWIW I think this should be pretty much fixed as of CVS HEAD, because
all of the sorting/grouping semantics are now normalized in
SortGroupClauses and find_expr_references() does know about them.
Can you extract a test case from your problem DB so we can verify
nothing got missed?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: