Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table for declarative partition table handling.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table for declarative partition table handling. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 31399.1494507762@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table fordeclarative partition table handling. (Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Bug in pg_dump --table and --exclude-table fordeclarative partition table handling.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < >> We add PARTITION OF clause for a table which is partition, so if the >> parent is not present while restoring, the restore is going to fail. > +1 > But, similarly for inheritance if we dump a child table, it's dump is > broken as > of today. When we dump a child table we append "inherits(parenttab)" clause > at > the end of the DDL. Later when we try to restore this table on a database > not > having the parenttab, the restore fails. > So, I consider this as a bug. It sounds exactly what I'd expect. In particular, given that pg_dump has worked that way for inherited tables from the beginning, it's hard to see any must-fix bugs here. You could argue that it would be better for pg_dump to emit something like CREATE TABLE c (...);ALTER TABLE c INHERIT p; so that if p isn't around, at least c gets created. And I think it *would* be better, probably. But if that isn't a new feature then I don't know what is. And partitioning really ought to track the behavior of inheritance here. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: