From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: insufficient qualification of some objects in dump files |
Date: | 2016-03-11 19:10:14 |
Message-ID: | 56E31816.7090401@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Peter,
On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human
>>> consumption, not strictly part of the archive format.
>
>> Hm, the TOC entry, with its tag changed, is part of the dump, and this
>> is written in the archive, but the shape of TocEntry does not change
>> so this is really debatable.
>
> I had in mind that we would add a separate field for tag's schema name to
> TocEntry, which surely would require an archive format number bump.
> As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
> need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is
> whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for
> automated processing of tags --- it's easy to think of cases in which the
> schema/object name separation would be ambiguous. So is the tag really
> "strictly for human consumption"? I'm not sure about that.
It looks like there is still some discussion to be had here about
whether a "human readable" solution is enough.
Until that's resolved I've marked this patch "Waiting on Author".
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-11 19:16:32 | Background Processes and reporting |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-11 19:04:07 | Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2) |