Re: Fixing pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing pg_dump
Date: 2004-06-28 02:18:55
Message-ID: 16353.1088389135@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> We currently fully qualify DROP command with the namespace so that drops
> will not accidentally modify the system catalogs. Shouldn't this also
> be necessary on ALL non-CREATE commands?
> Otherwise, if the create table command associated with each of these
> fails (for whatever reason), the script could happily carry on and
> modify the system catalog tables?

I don't buy it. There's a tradeoff here between certainty of doing what
you want and having a script that is easy to edit. DROP is a dangerous
weapon and we should be circumspect about applying it, but ALTER OWNER
etc are much less so.

Also, the point about qualifying the DROP is that you do not know
whether the object is there initially, and so you could be dropping
the wrong thing even in non-error cases. The scenario where the CREATE
fails is much less probable.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-06-28 03:11:23 Unifying type and function names
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-06-28 02:09:08 Re: Fixing pg_dump