| 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: | 2010-01-12 14:35:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1263306929.14170.21.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2010-01-11 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think you could probably use the existing tag field; no need for a new
> >> one.
>
> > Sorry, which tag field are you referring to?
>
> The one called "tag" in the source code. It prints out as "Name":
>
> --
> -- Name: binary_coercible(oid, oid); Type: FUNCTION; Schema: public; Owner: postgres
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> --
Um, that tag is the "name", and if you change that, the name in CREATE
FUNCTION also changes. I was initially thinking in that direction, but
it seems it won't be feasible without significant refactoring.
In the mean time, hacking it into the sort function itself as a special
case works out fine, per attached patch. One might frown upon such an
exception, but then again, function overloading is an exception to the
one-name-per-object rule all over the place anyway. ;-)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgdump-sort-order.patch | text/x-patch | 938 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2010-01-12 14:36:33 | Re: Typed tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-12 14:25:59 | Re: NOT NULL violation and error-message |