Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views
От | David Fetter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130110165144.GA10242@fetter.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:21:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail@joh.to> writes: > > While we can do the actual splitting of objects from a -Fc dump > > relatively easily, we can't fix the view definitions after they've > > been dumped. So I'm proposing a --pretty-print-views setting to > > pg_dump (patch attached). > > -1. The reason that pg_dump does not pretty-print things is that > it's unsafe; there is no real guarantee that the view will reload as > intended, because it's under-parenthesized. (Even if we were sure > it would reload safely into current code, which I'm not, what of > future versions that could have different operator precedences?) Under what circumstances do pretty-printed views not reload? It seems to me that such circumstances would be pretty_print() bugs by definition. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: