Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4FE654E4.9070609@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump and dependencies and --section ... it's a mess
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/22/2012 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Anyway, the attached patch does seem to fix the constraint bug. Looks sane to me. > > A possible objection to it is that there are now three different ways in > which the pg_dump code knows which DO_XXX object types go in which dump > section: the new addBoundaryDependencies() function knows this, the > SECTION_xxx arguments to ArchiveEntry calls know it, and the sort > ordering constants in pg_dump_sort.c have to agree too. My original > idea was to add an explicit section field to DumpableObject to reduce > the number of places that know this, but that would increase pg_dump's > memory consumption still more, and yet still not give us a single point > of knowledge. Has anybody got a better idea? Not off hand. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: