| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggested "easy" TODO: pg_dump --from-list |
| Date: | 2010-11-24 14:38:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4CED2380.3010902@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/24/2010 09:05 AM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Nope ... those strings are just helpful comments, they aren't really
>> guaranteed to be unique identifiers. In any case, it seems unlikely
>> that a user could expect to get the more complicated cases exactly right
>> other than by consulting "pg_dump | pg_restore -l" output. Which makes
>> the use-case kind of dubious to me.
> In which case would the catalogId, i.e. (tableoid, oid) not be unique?
> Or do you rather mean that it does not necessarily refer to the same
> object if that object got somehow recreated or that it could be
> different on different installations of the same database?
It would be unique, but a pain in the neck for users to get. Robert's
idea will have more traction with users.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matteo Beccati | 2010-11-24 14:51:55 | Re: Re: Mailing list archives |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-24 14:07:50 | requested feature: limit for text or bytea parameters in log |