Re: pg_dump and schema names

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and schema names
Date: 2013-08-09 18:44:30
Message-ID: 20130809184430.GE3353@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 02:15:31PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 01:39:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:53:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> This really requires more than no attention to the comments, especially
> > >> since you just removed the only apparent reason for _getObjectDescription
> > >> to make a distinction between objects whose name includes a schema and
> > >> those that don't.
> >
> > > I am confused. Are you saying I didn't read the comments, or that I can
> > > now merge the schema-qualified and non-schema-qualified object sections?
> >
> > Well, it's certainly not immediately obvious why we shouldn't merge them.
> > But I would have expected the function's header comment to now explain
> > that the output is intentionally not schema-qualified and assumes that the
> > search path is set for the object's schema if any.
>
> OK, done with the attached patch. The dump output is unchanged.

To be honest, I never got to modifying the comments because I expected
someone to say the patch was wrong. I also didn't expect to find dead
code in there too.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-08-09 19:02:29 Re: Proposal: leave a hint when switching logging away from stderr
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-08-09 18:43:58 Re: confusing error message