Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions
Date: 2012-11-02 14:50:35
Message-ID: m2ehkcrrd0.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think it may be time to bite the bullet and change that (including
>> breaking dumpSequence() into two separate functions). I'm a little bit
>> worried about the compatibility implications of back-patching such a
>> change, though. Is it likely that anybody out there is depending on the
>> fact that, eg, pg_dump --section=pre-data currently includes SEQUENCE SET
>> items? Personally I think it's more likely that that'd be seen as a
>> bug, but ...

FWIW, +1

> Specifically, I'm thinking this, which looks rather bulky but most of
> the diff is from reindenting the guts of dumpSequence().

I see that you commited that patch, thanks a lot Tom!

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2012-11-02 14:51:37 Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-11-02 14:41:14 Re: Bug in ALTER COLUMN SET DATA TYPE ?