Re: Fixing pg_dump
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fixing pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16353.1088389135@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fixing pg_dump (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fixing pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > We currently fully qualify DROP command with the namespace so that drops > will not accidentally modify the system catalogs. Shouldn't this also > be necessary on ALL non-CREATE commands? > Otherwise, if the create table command associated with each of these > fails (for whatever reason), the script could happily carry on and > modify the system catalog tables? I don't buy it. There's a tradeoff here between certainty of doing what you want and having a script that is easy to edit. DROP is a dangerous weapon and we should be circumspect about applying it, but ALTER OWNER etc are much less so. Also, the point about qualifying the DROP is that you do not know whether the object is there initially, and so you could be dropping the wrong thing even in non-error cases. The scenario where the CREATE fails is much less probable. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: