Thank you all for the explanation. I'll work around the issue. It's nice to understand the thought process even though I might disagree with it.
-- Brian Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2012, at 13:10, Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote: > On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 09:23 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Brian Weaver wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of >>> pg_restore odd? If the default installation since 9.0 has PL/PgSQL >>> installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the >>> language? As a developer by trade it smells like a bug. >> >> It's pg_dump that's emitting the command to create the language. If you ran >> pg_dump from 9.0+, it would not do so. > > Not quite true. pg_dump from 9.0 does save the language definition, but > it uses the new CREATE OR REPLACE statement for languages, so that, when > you restore it in a 9.0+ database that already has the same language, it > won't complain with an error message. > > BTW, it isn't odd that pg_dump 9.0 save the language definition. Having > by default the plpgsql language when you create a database doesn't mean > you can't drop it. > >> This is an example of why the standard advice for upgrading is to use the >> newer pg_dump against the older database > > Exactly. > > > -- > Guillaume > http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info > http://www.dalibo.com > -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
