Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14127.1232061802@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses ("Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes: >>> * 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? > This is all on 8.3.3. Okay. Looking at it some more, I notice that the SortGroupClause dependencies are on the individual operators, which probably isn't good enough: the operator *classes* have to exist or the parser will complain when trying to make sense of the view. So that would be a good thing to change for 8.4 (and it's not too late yet). However --- it's also the case that pg_dump should dump all operators *and* operator classes before it gets to views. So either you were doing something funny with the dump/reload or else there's a circular dependency in your DB that pg_dump is breaking in a bad place. I look forward to the test case ;-) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: