From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dumping an Extension's Script |
Date: | 2012-12-05 22:19:11 |
Message-ID: | 20121205221911.GI4673@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine escribió:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Well, there's certainly a point, because IIUC Dimitri's patch dumps
> > the file into the pg_dump output no matter whether the file originally
> > came from an SQL command or the filesystem. IMHO, anyone who thinks
> > that isn't going to break things rather badly isn't thinking hard
> > enough.
>
> Only if you ask for it using --extension-script. The default behaviour
> didn't change, whether you decide to install your extension from the
> file system or the PostgreSQL port.
What happens on a normal pg_dump of the complete database? For
extensions that were installed using strings instead of files, do I get
a string back? Because if not, the restore is clearly going to fail
anyway.
I mean, clearly the user doesn't want to list the extensions, figure
which ones were installed by strings, and then do pg_dump
--extension-script on them.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-05 22:21:16 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-05 22:19:01 | Re: Fwd: question on foreign key lock |