Re: Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump primary keys

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump primary keys
Date: 2000-06-01 17:57:34
Message-ID: 200006011757.NAA18771@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Added to TODO list.

> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> What though if a function accesses a table? Which one goes first? Do we
> >> have to maintain a network of dependencies in pg_dump? Eventually we'll
> >> probably have to, with all the foreign key stuff coming up. Gloomy
> >> prospects.
>
> Couldn't we solve this by the simple expedient of dumping all the
> objects in the database in OID order?
>
> Expecting pg_dump to parse function bodies to discover what
> relations/types are mentioned doesn't look appetizing at all...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ************
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith Parks 2000-06-01 20:31:17 Problems with recent CVS versions and Solaris.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-06-01 17:18:29 Re: 2700-byte prosrc limit fixed?