Hi Peter,

On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>>> sure.  The tags are more of an informational string for human
>>> consumption, not strictly part of the archive format.
>> Hm, the TOC entry, with its tag changed, is part of the dump, and this
>> is written in the archive, but the shape of TocEntry does not change
>> so this is really debatable.
> I had in mind that we would add a separate field for tag's schema name to
> TocEntry, which surely would require an archive format number bump.
> As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
> need a format number bump.  The question that has to be answered is
> whether this solution is good enough?  You could not trust it for
> automated processing of tags --- it's easy to think of cases in which the
> schema/object name separation would be ambiguous.  So is the tag really
> "strictly for human consumption"?  I'm not sure about that.

It looks like there is still some discussion to be had here about
whether a "human readable" solution is enough.

Until that's resolved I've marked this patch "Waiting on Author".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to