Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

(2010/02/02 9:33), Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
>
> KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> Can we remove such path and raise an error instead?
>>> Also, even if we support the older servers in the routine,
>>> the new bytea format will be another problem anyway.
>>
>> OK, I'll fix it.
>
> I think we might need to discuss about explicit version checks in pg_restore.
> It is not related with large objects, but with pg_restore's capability.
> We've not supported to restore a dump to older servers, but we don't have any
> version checks, right? Should we do the checks at the beginning of restoring?
> If we do so, LO patch could be more simplified.

I agree it is a good idea.

>> The --schema-only with large objects might be unnatural, but the
>> --data-only with properties of large objects are also unnatural.
>> Which behavior is more unnatural?
>
> I think large object metadata is a kind of row-based access controls.
> How do we dump and restore ACLs per rows when we support them for
> normal tables? We should treat LO metadata as same as row-based ACLs.
> In my opinion, I'd like to treat them as part of data (not of schema).

OK, I'll update the patch according to the behavior you suggested.
| I'd prefer to keep the existing behavior:
| * default or data-only : dump all attributes and data of blobs
| * schema-only : don't dump any blobs
| and have independent options to control blob dumps:
| * -b, --blobs : dump all blobs even if schema-only
| * -B, --no-blobs : [NEW] don't dump any blobs even if default or data-only

Please wait for a while. Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>