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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
