Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4534.978890680@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Philip Warner wrote: >> Is this OK? Or inappropriate for beta? > From Tatsuo's example, it looks critical enough that it should be fixed > before release, and since its a 'support program' issue, not a 'core > server' issue, ramifications of fixing it aren't as big as if it was a > 'core server' issue ... go for it I concur. This is not a new feature, but a bug fix, and therefore it's appropriate to do it during beta. We don't require beta-period bug fixes to be the smallest possible change that cures the problem. They should be good fixes if practical. One issue however is how confident are we of the alter table add constraint code? I'm not sure it's been exercised enough to justify making pg_dump rely on it ... is anyone willing to spend some time testing that statement? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: