Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump primary keys

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
Cc: peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] pg_dump primary keys
Date: 1999-12-11 17:58:44
Message-ID: 23913.944935124@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> What though if a function accesses a table? Which one goes first? Do we
>> have to maintain a network of dependencies in pg_dump? Eventually we'll
>> probably have to, with all the foreign key stuff coming up. Gloomy
>> prospects.

Couldn't we solve this by the simple expedient of dumping all the
objects in the database in OID order?

Expecting pg_dump to parse function bodies to discover what
relations/types are mentioned doesn't look appetizing at all...

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-12-11 18:13:15 Re: [HACKERS] LONG
Previous Message Gunther Schadow 1999-12-11 17:33:10 UNICODE characters vs. BINARY