Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?
Date: 2006-01-24 15:42:17
Message-ID: 18977.1138117337@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 10:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's possible to support this: the group
>> and the user will now really be the same entity, ie a role that has both
>> its own login privileges and members.

> Assuming you actually want to unify the two objects. That might well be
> the common case, but will it always be true?

As compared to what? I didn't like the notion of auto-renaming one of
the roles, if that's what you're suggesting. That seems well outside
pg_dump's charter.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-01-24 15:59:27 Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-01-24 15:38:47 Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?