On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 17:12, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> Considering that the issue appears to have been ignored from >>> mid-February until early October, I don't see why it should now get to >>> jump to the head of the queue. Other people may have different >>> opinions, of course. >> >> Added. :-) >> > > I'm just starting to look at this, by way of a break in staring at pg_dump > code ;-). This just needs to be backpatched to 9.1, is that right?
Yes please. 9.0 did not have this problem (or at least if it did it was a separate issue). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
