From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pholben(at)greatbridge(dot)com |
Subject: | RE: 7.1 pg_dump fails for user-defined types (release s topper?) |
Date: | 2001-03-30 20:27:53 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D3363@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I can think of a couple of ways to deal with this, the simplest being
> to say "don't do that" --- ie, define widget_in with result type
> "opaque" rather than "widget". That's pretty ugly and will likely
Why is it ugly? Why not update RETURNS type for XXX_in function when
creating type?
> break people's 7.0 dump scripts all by itself. A more promising idea
Is 7.1 pg_dump able to dump 7.0 database?..
> is to hack function creation so that the OID assigned to the function
> is lower than the OIDs assigned to any shell types created when the
> function is defined.
How much lower? How to guarantee that OID of XXX_out created sometime
after XXX_in will be lower than XXX' OID?
> Or we could try to hack pg_dump to fix this,
> but that doesn't seem appetizing.
It looks like also right way to follow - pg_dump should care about
system dependancies.
> There may be similar problems with other shell-catalog-entry cases;
> haven't looked yet.
>
> Is this a release stopper? I'm inclined to think it is.
Yes, looks like that one -:(
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren King | 2001-03-30 20:30:41 | RE: 7.1 pg_dump fails for user-defined types (release stopper?) |
Previous Message | Dominic J. Eidson | 2001-03-30 20:20:17 | Re: Re: third call for platforms... |