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: