On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston
> 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.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: