Re: Re: pg_dump tries to do too much per query

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 tries to do too much per query
Date: 2000-09-19 16:13:06
Message-ID: 6762.969379986@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:
>>> The reason that changing pg_dump is a superior solution for this problem
>>> is that there's only one place to change, not umpteen dozen ...
>>
>> Well at least two, unless you like the following:
>>
>> zzz=# select * from pg_views;
>> ERROR: cache lookup of attribute 1 in relation 3450464 failed

> Apologies - I just noticed you fixed this in CVS, so it now manages
> (somehow!) to output a valid view definition even without the underlying
> table. A little scary, though.

Say what? (... tries it ...) Fascinating. I wouldn't rely on this
behavior however; the fact that it works today is a totally unintended
consequence of a change I made for column alias support. Next week
ruleutils.c might try to access the underlying tables again.

The general issue still remains: if a database contains an inconsistency
or error, introduced by whatever means (and there'll always be bugs),
a pg_dump failure is likely to be the first notice a dbadmin has about it.
So it behooves us to make sure that pg_dump issues error messages that
are as specific as possible. In particular, if there is a specific
object such as a view or rule that's broken, pg_dump should take care
that it can finger that particular object, not have to report a generic
"SELECT failed" error message.

This problem has been around for a long time, of course, but now that
we have someone who's taking an active interest in fixing pg_dump ;-)
I'm hoping something will get done about it...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-09-19 16:27:41 Re: Possible "enhancement"?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-09-19 15:55:38 Re: Cascade delete views?