| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump sort order for functions | 
| Date: | 2010-01-11 16:57:49 | 
| Message-ID: | 1263229069.26354.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On mån, 2010-01-11 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > pg_dump sorts its output first by object type, then by object name, and
> > then processes all that for dependencies.  This works well, but for
> > overloaded functions this still gives a random sort order that can
> > produce annoying diffs in the dump.
> 
> > Would it be acceptable to introduce a secondary sort key field into the
> > DumpableObject struct that functions would fill with, say, the argument
> > types (maybe something like "text,int,int" -- need to play with this a
> > little)?
> 
> I think you could probably use the existing tag field; no need for a new
> one.
Sorry, which tag field are you referring to?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-01-11 17:42:08 | Re: Testing with concurrent sessions | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-11 15:44:52 | Re: pg_dump sort order for functions |