Re: BUG #6299: pg_dump, pg_dumpall - Problem with the order of backup functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: lindebg <lindebg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #6299: pg_dump, pg_dumpall - Problem with the order of backup functions
Date: 2011-11-19 17:57:44
Message-ID: 20474.1321725464@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

lindebg <lindebg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/19/2011 04:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Color me skeptical. Under what conceivable use-case could you have
>> functions that were mutually dependent in that way? And actually did
>> something useful (not recurse till stack overflow) when called?

> Does this mean that this situation will not be handled by pg_dump /
> pg_restore?

If you can convince me that there is some actual real-world use case for
a situation like this, I might think about complicating pg_dump to the
point where it would handle it. If it's only an artificial corner case,
I don't think that the added complexity (and ensuing long-term
maintenance costs, plus risk of new bugs) is worth it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Diego Elio Petten 2011-11-20 13:45:37 BUG #6302: Certificate lookup fails for users with /dev/null as home directory
Previous Message lindebg 2011-11-19 17:19:43 Re: BUG #6299: pg_dump, pg_dumpall - Problem with the order of backup functions