Re: Very vague pg_dump question ...

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Very vague pg_dump question ...
Date: 2005-07-09 00:29:06
Message-ID: 20050708212809.F940@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> I'm currently looking into a problem that a client is reporting that
>> pg_dump from 8.0.3 is 'skipping' one of their sequences ... I'm waiting
>> for more info, but am curious if anyone knows (or can think of?) any
>> reason why this might happen? The only thing I can think of is that the
>> sequence is owned by someone other then who the database is being dump'd
>> as, and has no permissions to 'read' it ... but anything I'm not thinking
>> of?
>
> AFAIK, a permissions problem would result in a pretty obvious error
> message from pg_dump ... though it's certainly possible for someone
> to ignore that, especially if they are running pg_dump noninteractively.
>
> Skipping in what sense --- no DDL, no setval, both? Is this a
> separately created sequence or a SERIAL sequence?

This is what I'm still looking to find out ... all I got was "the sequence
isn't being recreated in the dump", and when I message the client back, I
get a vacation message, so obviously it wasn't a critical bug for them
*roll eyes*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-07-09 08:09:36 Re: Must be owner to truncate?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2005-07-08 23:29:18 Re: Very vague pg_dump question ...