| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump/restore issue with schemas |
| Date: | 2003-10-03 18:10:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200310031910.40232.dev@archonet.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Friday 03 October 2003 16:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> > On dump/restore the search_path is set to reports, pg_catalog so of
> > course you get a "no relation a" error
>
> This is an SQL function right?
It was indeed.
What particularly threw me was the fact that it just complained about the
unqualified table name. I assumed it was a dependency-related issue and then
got confused because the table clearly *did* exist.
> This seems to be an additional and fairly critical reason to disable
> checking of SQL function bodies during a reload. I had already proposed
> doing so:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-09/msg00970.php
> but that seemed to have been greeted by a collective yawn, so I was not
> planning to do it for 7.4. Now I'm thinking we had better do it.
Is that what you do with views? I thought the problem might exist there, but a
quick test seems to show they're fine.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-03 18:30:20 | Re: pg_dump/restore issue with schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-03 15:20:13 | Re: pg_dump/restore issue with schemas |