On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> This argument seems a bit irrelevant to me. pg_dump doesn't get to pick >> and choose what will be in the database it's told to dump. If we're > > Sure. > >> going to do something like what Joel wants, we have to have file naming >> conventions for operator and cast objects. So we can't just leave them >> out of the conversation (or if we do, we shouldn't be surprised when the >> ensuing design sucks). > > I guess what we're saying is that at this point we can pick non user > friendly naming rules, like pg_operator/<oid>.sql or something like > that, OID based. Impacted users might as well learn about extensions.
I think that would defeat some of the human-readability goals that people have for this feature, not to mention that it would lose the ability to do diff -r between a dump produced on cluster A and a dump produced on cluster B. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
