| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall |
| Date: | 2018-01-21 16:02:29 |
| Message-ID: | 19243.1516550549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:54:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Command was: DROP DATABASE "template1";
> Uh, the oid of the template1 database is 1, and I assume we would want
> to preserve that too.
I don't feel any huge attachment to that. In the first place, under
this proposal recreating template1 is something you would only need to do
if you weren't satisfied with its default properties as set by initdb.
Which ought to be a minority of users. In the second place, if you are
changing those properties from the way initdb set it up, it's not really
virgin template1 anymore, so why shouldn't it have a new OID?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-21 16:11:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows |
| Previous Message | Stephen Froehlich | 2018-01-21 15:47:35 | RE: STATISTICS retained in CREATE TABLE ... LIKE (INCLUDING ALL)? |