Re: Bug in pg_dump/restore -o

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in pg_dump/restore -o
Date: 2002-01-18 06:42:51
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20020118174251.00baa3b0@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 01:31 18/01/02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>I hate to say it but I think this is too risky for 7.2. ...
>...and keep this for 7.3.
>
>I will wait to see what others say.

Try 7.2.1. If you compare the patched Vs unpatched file, you will see that
they are not substantially different (despite the size of the patch). But I
don't have any attachment to this going in 7.2 (but it should be in 7.2.1).

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-01-18 07:23:41 Re: age() function?
Previous Message Joe Conway 2002-01-18 06:36:09 Re: tuptoaster.c must *not* use SnapshotAny