Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1533086.1675349554@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 2023-02-01 We 20:03, Tom Lane wrote: >> Anyway, after re-reading the old thread I wonder if my first instinct >> (force --load-via-partition-root for enum hash cases only) was the >> best compromise after all. I'm not sure how painful it is to get >> pg_dump to detect such cases, but it's probably possible. > Given the other problems you enumerated upthread, I'd be more inclined > to go with your other suggestion of > "--load-via-partition-root=on/off/auto" (with the default presumably > "auto"). Hmm ... is there any actual value in "off" in this case? We can be just about certain that dump/reload of a hashed enum key will fail. If we made "auto" also use --load-via-partition-root for range keys having collation properties, there'd be more of an argument for letting users override it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: