From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
Cc: | "D(dot) Dante Lorenso" <dante(at)lorenso(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump not including custom CAST? |
Date: | 2007-11-17 16:01:27 |
Message-ID: | 17086.1195315287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> On Nov 17, 2007, at 0:36 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> pg_dump thinks it's a built-in system object.
> What other objects might be susceptible to this? Operators? Operator
> classes?
It's just casts. They're a bit of a problem since they have neither
owners nor schemas, so there's not anything very concrete to base a
dump-or-don't-dump decision on. The rule pg_dump uses is to dump it
if at least one of the three underlying objects (source type, dest type,
or function) is dumpable. Here you've got 2 builtin types and
no function, so you lose.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shane Ambler | 2007-11-17 16:37:03 | Re: Need help with complicated SQL statement |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-11-17 15:50:05 | Re: Qeury a boolean column?(using postgresql & EJB) |