RE: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape

From: "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "'Tom Lane '" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape
Date: 2000-01-16 20:07:37
Message-ID: 1BF7C7482189D211B03F00805F8527F748C44B@S-NATH-EXCH2
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> And a pg_dump that cores trying to dump someone's database is *not*
>> a "minor" problem.
No, I didn't mean minor when it happens, I meant minor to fix. Sorry. Of
course it's serious for the user.

>> So I'm leaning towards leaving the pg_dump code as-is and fixing the
>> limitation in pqexpbuffer.
Yes, this is the correct solution. What's the best way? To check the
incoming string lengths for anything aproaching or greater than 1kB and
slice it up from there?

MikeA

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-16 20:12:01 Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-16 18:10:41 Re: [HACKERS] Problem with foreign keys and inheritance