Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers(at)andrewrepp(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: 2023-02-01 22:38:13
Message-ID: 1425446.1675291093@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> You mentioned "minor releases" here. Who said anything about that?

I did: I'd like to back-patch the fix if possible. I think changing
the default --load-via-partition-root choice could be back-patchable.

If Robert is resistant to that but would accept it in master,
I'd settle for that in preference to having no fix.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-02-01 22:49:04 Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-02-01 22:36:47 Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning