Re: pg_dump future problem.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump future problem. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27926.1052148148@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump future problem. (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump future problem.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes: > Good point. It's only in the source code. I thought I had updated the docs > as well... Actually, I think the sequence of events was that we neglected to remove the statement in the source code when we fixed the documentation. 3-parameter setval is documented because it solves a problem that users have --- pg_dump is not the only application that needs to do this. > My recollection is that setting is_called is more fragile than just setting > the sequence value, so it not wise to use in general. Doesn't look that way to me; we're setting several fields of the sequence record no matter what. Perhaps your recollection predates Vadim's last rewrite of the sequence code? > I'm not actually suggesting starting over. Just presenting a nicer > interface and fixing a bug in the process, rather than building yet another > user-visible function as a band-aid solution. But the proposed "nicer interface" *introduces* a bug, namely the inability to preserve is_called, which is exactly the pg_dump bug that 3-parameter setval was invented to fix. I do not want to go backwards in the name of a "nicer interface". regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: