| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joseph Tate <jtate(at)dragonstrider(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore problems and suggested resolution |
| Date: | 2004-02-14 10:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 402DFD92.4010005@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
>>> As an implementation issue, I wonder why these things are hacking
>>> permanent on-disk data structures anyway, when what is wanted is only a
>>> temporary suspension of triggers/rules within a single backend. Some
>>> kind of superuser-only SET variable might be a better idea. It'd
>>> not be
>>> hard to implement, and it'd be much safer to use since failures
>>> wouldn't
>>> leave you with bogus catalog contents.
>>
>>
>> I believe oracle and mssql have ALTER TABLE/DISABLE TRIGGER style
>> statements...
>
>
> Oracle does for sure, but I can tell you that I have seen people
> bitten by triggers inadvertantly left disabled before...I think Tom
> has a good point.
Might be, but disabled triggers are not only useful when restoring a
database. We need this, and supporting this without hacking would be
helpful.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-02-14 15:37:59 | Re: pg_restore problems and suggested resolution |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-02-14 04:53:32 | Re: pg_restore problems and suggested resolution |