On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Moving to -hackers since this is getting into details > > Bug Report # 14247 > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: >> > Do you have an opinion on this following? >> >> I think the real problem in this area is that the division of labor >> we have between pg_dump and pg_dumpall isn't very good for real-world >> use cases. > > > I won't disagree here. > >> >> I'm not at all sure what a better answer would look like. >> But I'd rather see us take two steps back and consider the issue >> holistically instead of trying to band-aid individual misbehaviors. >> >> The fact that pg_dump is emitting COMMENT ON DATABASE at all is >> fundamentally wrong given the existing division-of-labor decisions, >> namely that pg_dump is responsible for objects within a database >> not for database-level properties.
I think a while back somebody had the idea of making COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE or COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE work, which seems like an elegant solution to me. Of course, I just work here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers