From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |
Date: | 2009-02-27 06:15:14 |
Message-ID: | 1235715314.5294.25.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:42 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> > In the general case though, for any object that refers to multiple other
> > objects, I don't see any way around explicit schema qualification. I
> > suppose it could be smart and say "foo_type is unique in my search path,
> > so I don't need to schema-qualify it".
>
> Yeah, but for most other objects "public" is also excluded as well as
> pg_catalog. For CREATE TYPE, "public" is explicit.
>
Ah, I see what you mean. Here's what I get when the type is named
public.integer (pg_dump output):
CREATE FUNCTION f1(x "integer", y integer) RETURNS integer
LANGUAGE sql
AS $$ select 1; $$;
and here's what I get when I try to be creative, and I define a
public.tsvector type (pg_dump output):
CREATE FUNCTION f1(x tsvector, y pg_catalog.tsvector) RETURNS integer
LANGUAGE sql
AS $$ select 1; $$;
It seems like pg_dump tries fairly hard to make the output readable in
the typical case. It does seem a little inconsistent that the list of
types that make up another type don't follow the exact same rules; I
don't know the reason for that.
Is using the custom format a possibility?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-27 06:24:50 | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-27 05:50:14 | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |