From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly |
Date: | 2001-03-06 03:40:23 |
Message-ID: | 4145.983850023@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> At 22:26 5/03/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, is it a feature at all? Or a bug? ISTM poor
>> form for a data-only restore to assume it may turn off all pre-existing
>> triggers.
> Do you recall any of the history - why was it added in the first place?
No, I don't recall. It might be worth digging in the archives.
> I vaguely recall something about doing a schema restore then data
> restore. In this case, you need to disable triggers, but maybe that
> should be an option only. ie. default to no messing with pg_class, but
> if the user requests it, output code to disable triggers.
Well, mumble. I guess the question is what are the triggers going to
*do*? If they are going to cross-check against tables that may not be
restored yet, then you have a problem if you don't turn them off. OTOH
it's easy to imagine that this may allow you to load inconsistent data.
'Tis a puzzlement.
For now, I'd be happy if the normal case of a simple restore doesn't
generate warnings. Improving on that probably takes more thought and
risk than we should be putting in at the end of beta.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-03-06 03:44:36 | Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-06 03:35:28 | Re: mailing list messages |