Re: [HACKERS] network_ops in 7.0 and pg_dump question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] network_ops in 7.0 and pg_dump question
Date: 2000-02-07 23:30:51
Message-ID: 21653.949966251@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Now, how to convert these? Not supplying the ops works fine, but
> pg_dump supplies the ops. Maybe in gram.y, if they supply network_ops,
> we should just remove that from being passed to the backend for a few
> releases. Comments?

Ugly, but probably the best stopgap for backwards compatibility ...
at least I can't think of a better answer, since we have no way to
change what 6.5 pg_dump will dump.

You're only going to suppress "network_ops" if it appears in the
ops position of a CREATE INDEX, right? Don't want to stop people
from using the name for fields and so on.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Bitmead 2000-02-07 23:32:51 Re: fsync alternatives (was: Re: [HACKERS] TODO item)
Previous Message Vince Vielhaber 2000-02-07 23:25:35 Re: [HACKERS] New Globe