From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |
Date: | 2009-02-27 06:24:50 |
Message-ID: | 12893.1235715890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> 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;
Are you entirely sure that they don't? Josh didn't provide enough
context to be sure, but I didn't see any clear proof in his example
that the type references were working any differently than they do
elsewhere in pg_dump.
The normal deal in pg_dump is that when dumping any given object,
the search path is set to that object's schema followed by pg_catalog.
So you will get a schema qualification for any reference to an object in
a different schema. Also, there are certain standard data types that
are spelled in special ways because The SQL Standard Says So.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-02-27 06:53:44 | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-02-27 06:15:14 | Re: Weird quirk with pg_dump of complex types |