Re: pg_dumpall with flag --no-role-passwords omits roles comments as well
| От | Dominique Devienne |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dumpall with flag --no-role-passwords omits roles comments as well |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFCRh-8X7MNyMPAWAxRbQemFK=Cs8AMJOcc6Lz0ijmmqKhgL2g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dumpall with flag --no-role-passwords omits roles comments as well (Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:52 AM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:46 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:> However I noticed that comments on roles are also omitted from the dump, as if --no--comments flag was set - but it wasn't.
Comments on roles are stored against the pg_authid catalog relationHi. What do you mean? COMMENTs are not stored *in* that relation.And AFAIK, only accessible via functions using the OID or NAME.So the relation used, pg_authid or pg_roles, shouldn't matter, no?
OK, I see now you meant shobj_description(oid, 'pg_authid'),
i.e. that 'pg_authid' literal in the function call. Thus your use of
"against" in the above sentence. Apologies for my misunderstanding.
But that literal in the function call is separate from which relation,
pg_authid or pg_roles, one actually SELECT from, as already shown. --DD
```select ..., shobj_description(oid, 'pg_authid')
from pg_roles...```
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: