Re: pg_dumpall + restore = missing view
От | Thomas F.O'Connell |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dumpall + restore = missing view |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9DC9829A-3DC6-11D9-8E47-000D93AE0944@sitening.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dumpall + restore = missing view (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dumpall + restore = missing view
|
Список | pgsql-general |
For the record, you shouldn't have needed to do a dump restore between 7.4.1 and 7.4.6 should you? -tfo -- Thomas F. O'Connell Co-Founder, Information Architect Sitening, LLC http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 Nashville, TN 37203-6320 615-260-0005 On Nov 19, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com> writes: >> This appears to have all gone well execpt that one view is missing. >> I've restored that view by hand but am curious if this is a PG bug or >> failure of the nut behind the wheel. > >> The view involves the union of many tables and its creation failed >> because creation of one of the tables does not take place until later >> in the dump file. > > This is a longstanding pg_dump bug: it's not very bright about order of > creation of objects. (In this case I surmise that you created the > view, > and later altered it to reference a table that didn't exist when the > view was originally created.) > > As of 8.0 pg_dump examines dependency information and should > theoretically > always get this right, but in prior versions it's a real hazard. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: