(2010/02/02 9:33), Takahiro Itagaki wrote: > > KaiGai Kohei<kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote: > >>> Can we remove such path and raise an error instead? >>> Also, even if we support the older servers in the routine, >>> the new bytea format will be another problem anyway. >> >> OK, I'll fix it. > > I think we might need to discuss about explicit version checks in pg_restore. > It is not related with large objects, but with pg_restore's capability. > We've not supported to restore a dump to older servers, but we don't have any > version checks, right? Should we do the checks at the beginning of restoring? > If we do so, LO patch could be more simplified.
I agree it is a good idea. >> The --schema-only with large objects might be unnatural, but the >> --data-only with properties of large objects are also unnatural. >> Which behavior is more unnatural? > > I think large object metadata is a kind of row-based access controls. > How do we dump and restore ACLs per rows when we support them for > normal tables? We should treat LO metadata as same as row-based ACLs. > In my opinion, I'd like to treat them as part of data (not of schema). OK, I'll update the patch according to the behavior you suggested. | I'd prefer to keep the existing behavior: | * default or data-only : dump all attributes and data of blobs | * schema-only : don't dump any blobs | and have independent options to control blob dumps: | * -b, --blobs : dump all blobs even if schema-only | * -B, --no-blobs : [NEW] don't dump any blobs even if default or data-only Please wait for a while. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
