| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump |
| Date: | 2001-01-07 18:32:39 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.31.0101071432110.21326-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > Essentially, worst case scenario, we are going from 'broken->broken' ...
>
> No, I don't think so. The current pg_dump code is only broken if
> you've renamed a column involved in a foreign-key dependency (if I
> understood the thread correctly). But Philip is proposing to change
> pg_dump to rely on alter table add constraint for *all* PRIMARY KEY
> constructs. So if alter table add constraint fails, it could break
> cases that had nothing to do with either foreign keys or renamed
> columns.
>
> I'm not really arguing not to make the change. I am saying there's
> an area here that we'd better take care to test during beta cycle...
Agreed ... we almost need a regression test for pg_dump itself :)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | bpalmer | 2001-01-07 19:05:44 | Re: CVS regression test failure on OBSD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-07 18:29:31 | Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump |