| From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Date: | 2000-11-08 16:24:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20001109032405.02be5100@mail.rhyme.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 11:13 8/11/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Do we still need the lastsysoid column in pg_database if we do things
>this way? Seems like what you really want is to suppress all the
>objects that are in template0, so you really only need one lastsysoid
>value, namely template0's. The other entries are useless AFAICS.
That sounds reasonable; although there may be some value in allowing dumps
relative to template0 OR template1. Not sure.
Where would you store the value if not in pg_database?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-08 16:42:40 | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-08 16:13:46 | Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1 |