On Oct27, 2011, at 23:02 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Oct21, 2011, at 16:42 , Phil Sorber wrote:
>>> If you did want to make them immutable, I also like Florian's idea of
>>> a dependency graph. This would make the dumps less readable though.
>> Hm, I kinda reversed my opinion on that, though - i.e., I no longer think
>> that the dependency graph idea has much merit. For two reasons
>> First, dependencies work on OIDs, not on names. Thus, for the dependency
>> machinery to work for GUCs, they'd also need to store OIDs instead of
>> names of referenced schema objects. (Otherwise you get into trouble if
>> objects are renamed)
>> Which of course doesn't work, at least for roles, because roles are
>> shared objects, but referenced objects might be database-local.
>> (search_path, for example).
> Is this a TODO?

The idea quoted above, no. But

 Downgrade non-immutable (i.e., dependent on database state) checks during
 "ALTER ROLE/DATABASE SET" to WARNINGs to avoid breakage during restore

makes for a fine TODO, I'd say.

best regards,
Florian Pflug

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to