| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump ignoring information_schema tables which used in Create Publication. |
| Date: | 2017-05-26 02:45:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZw9M=u5jP+3THYBUOM9NeRr5-Ns3y50kkdVsvAXrnoyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> They are the same cases.
>
> a) Create object in information_schema.
>
> b) Create another object elsewhere that depends on it.
>
> c) pg_dump will dump (b) but not (a).
>
> So the fix, if any, would be to prevent (a), or prevent (b), or fix (c).
I guess I'm not convinced that it's really the same. I think we want
to allow users to create views over system objects; our life might be
easier if we hadn't permitted that, but views over e.g. pg_locks are
common, and prohibiting them doesn't seem like a reasonable choice.
I'm less clear that we want to let them publish system objects. Aside
from the pg_dump issues, does it work?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Regina Obe | 2017-05-26 05:13:43 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-26 02:19:35 | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken) |