Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses

From: "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus views and opclasses
Date: 2009-01-15 22:57:59
Message-ID: 37ed240d0901151457i70f12171l95c64ed2b239fe9f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> * It seems there's no pg_depend entry for
>> types/functions/operators/opclasses that the view depends on, unless
>> they are part of the SELECT list.
>
> What PG version exactly? We've been moving towards fuller
> representation of the semantics in the parse tree over time,
> so that's a very relevant question.
>

This is all on 8.3.3.

> FWIW I think this should be pretty much fixed as of CVS HEAD, because
> all of the sorting/grouping semantics are now normalized in
> SortGroupClauses and find_expr_references() does know about them.
> Can you extract a test case from your problem DB so we can verify
> nothing got missed?

Okay, I'll work on getting a test case together and try it against
HEAD and 8.3.5 for good measure. I'll post the results here.

Cheers,
BJ

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-15 23:01:37 Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-15 22:55:26 Re: Autovacuum daemon terminated by signal 11