From: | Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] Table versions |
Date: | 2003-10-29 15:36:53 |
Message-ID: | 20031029173653.522c804a.svb@ucs.co.za |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-sql |
Thanks guys,
I had a feeling this was the case, but wasn't sure.
The one-version pg_dump looks like a winner.
Regards
Stefan
##START##
=> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
=> >> What I did next, is put a trigger on pg_attribute that should, in theory,
=> >> on insert and update, fire up a function that will increment a version
=>
=> > System tables do not use the same process for row insertion / updates as
=> > the rest of the system. You're trigger will rarely be fired.
=>
=> s/rarely/never/. We do not support triggers on system catalogs. The
=> system should have done its best to prevent you from creating one ...
=> I suppose you had to hack around with a "postgres -O" standalone backend?
=>
=> Returning to the original problem, it seems to me that comparing "pg_dump
=> -s" output is a reasonable way to proceed. The problem of inconsistent
=> output format across pg_dump versions is a red herring --- just use a
=> single pg_dump version (the one for your newest server) for all the
=> dumps. Recent pg_dump versions still talk to older servers, back to 7.0
=> or thereabouts.
=>
=> regards, tom lane
=>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff | 2003-10-29 16:03:58 | pg_clog & vacuum oddness |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-29 14:30:50 | Re: [SQL] Table versions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-10-29 17:42:57 | Re: Help on update that subselects other records in table, uses joins |
Previous Message | Gary Stainburn | 2003-10-29 15:36:30 | Re: update from select |