From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump behaves differently for different archive formats |
Date: | 2014-07-28 14:30:44 |
Message-ID: | 20140728143044.GR16422@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:
> > I thought that changing the dump format for this would be too
> > much trouble, so I came up with the attached.
If we're going to change this, it seems to me that the only option would
be to change the dump format... Just off-the-cuff, I'm wondering if we
could actually not change the real 'format' but simply promote each ACL
entry (and similar cases..) to top-level objects and declare that TOC
entries should be single statements.
> While those specific problems could no doubt be fixed, I object to the
> entire concept of assuming that what pg_dump emits is always going to be
> trivially parsable. If we are to go down this path, I think we have to
> replicate what psql is doing to identify statement boundaries ... and
> as I mentioned upthread, that's rather a lot of code :-(
Agreed. If we want this, we should handle it on the pg_dump side, not
try and work it out on the pg_restore side.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-28 14:55:43 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump behaves differently for different archive formats |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-07-28 14:20:26 | Re: Checkpoint_segments optimal value |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2014-07-28 14:34:17 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-07-28 14:30:34 | Re: building pdfs |