| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |