Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55FEB507.40901@timbira.com.br обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 17-09-2015 14:21, Michael Paquier wrote: > pg_dump relies on attnum to define the column ordering, so one > possibility would be to do things more consistently at backend level. > Thoughts? > According to your example, problem is the columns from the parent table "aa" are added _before_ declaring the inherited table "bb". Then, an attnum from column "d" (part of parent table "aa") is assigned to a lower number than in the original table "bb". Someone can say that we could assign an attnum for column "d" considering all of the inheritance tree. However, attnum is used as an index to arrays (we could bloat some of those) and some logic rely on it to count the number of columns. It would become tablecmds.c into an spaghetti. IMHO a possible way to solve it is adding support for logical column ordering. An ALTER TABLE command (emitted if a parameter was informed) during dump could handle it. BTW, last thread [1] about logical column ordering seems to have died a few months ago. Alvaro? [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141209174146.GP1768@alvh.no-ip.org -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte24x7 e Treinamento
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: