From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: enum types and binary queries |
Date: | 2007-08-31 14:48:11 |
Message-ID: | 873axz221g.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark escribió:
>
>> I think it would be ok only if a pg_dump/pg_restore reliably restored the same
>> oid->enum value mapping. Otherwise a binary dump is useless. But as I
>> understand it that's the case currently, is it?
er, lost a "not" in the editing of that, sorry.
> That doesn't work if the dump is restored on a database that already has
> those OIDs used for another enum. The easy workaround would be to
> "rewrite" the data to use the new OID, but believe me, you don't want to
> go down that route, lest madness await you at the end.
enum OIDs are unique across enums? This seems like a strange way to do it. I
recall conversations about this a while back though and there were limitations
of the type system that led to this, right?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-31 14:56:15 | Re: enum types and binary queries |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-31 14:44:43 | Re: [HACKERS] enum types and binary queries |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-31 14:56:15 | Re: enum types and binary queries |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-31 14:44:43 | Re: [HACKERS] enum types and binary queries |