Re: Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited from template1

At 23:23 9/11/00 -0600, selkovjr(at)mcs(dot)anl(dot)gov wrote:
>
>Philip Warner wrote:
>> Relying of values of numeric OIDs is definitely clunky, but it's all we can
>> do at the moment.
>
>I held that one up, but now I am wondering: would checking a "don't
>dump me" flag involve any more code or or would it be any more
>difficult than the current (oid > n)? Seems like a straightforward
>change to me, so what's the reason for this "all we can do" sentiment?

The imminent release of 7.1, the fact that I am not totally sold on the
idea myself, and the fact that it would require a new attribute on many
system tables. It is *a* solution to the problem, but I'd very much like to
find a different one if possible.

I have also mentioned this on two occasions now, and each has met with
total silence. I have come to interpret this to mean either (a) the idea is
too stupid to rate a comment, or (b) go ahead with the proposal. Since I am
not really proposing anything, I assume the correct interpretation is (a).
:-(.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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 |/