From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pholben(at)greatbridge(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table constraint ordering disrupted by pg_dump |
Date: | 2001-04-03 08:57:02 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.5.32.20010403185702.0279b7b0@mail.rhyme.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
At 23:55 2/04/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> While it't not a bug, it would be nice if pg_dump reproduced definitions as
>> faithfully as possible. To that end, would it be worth selecting the
>> constraints in OID order (using oid from pg_relcheck)?
>
>If it's just another clause in a query, you might as well. I wouldn't
>take any risks for it though...
Just an ORDER BY. This has been done in CVS, but since I could not
reproduce the original problem, I can't check it, so let me know how it works.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 | andrea gelmini | 2001-04-03 09:25:47 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.0.2 Date Miscalculation |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-04-03 06:31:57 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.0.2 Date Miscalculation |