Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5565.1345572873@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ... (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I can work on it if you're still swamped. I think it is probably >> fixable by treating the view options as attached to the _RETURN rule >> instead of the base table in pg_dump's objects. (There is an ALTER VIEW >> command to set the security option, no?) > Yep, we need to emit: > ALTER VIEW whatever SET (security_barrier = true); > ...after creating the rule that transforms it into a view. I spent a > little time looking at this before lunch and it seems pretty > straightforward to exclude the options from the dump of the table: I > think we can just have repairViewRuleMultiLoop() to clear ((TableInfo > *) table)->reloptions. > However, that by itself would result in them not getting dumped > anywhere, so then I guess we need to add a reloptions field to > RuleInfo. repairViewMultiLoop() can then detach the options from the > TableInfo object and attach them to the RuleInfo object. Then we can > adjust dumpRule() to print an ALTER VIEW command for any attached > reloptions. That seems pretty grotty because it kind of flies in the > face of the idea that the table and the rule are separate objects, but > I don't have a better idea. Yeah, that sounds about right. You want to do it, or shall I? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: