On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. > > Robert wants perfection, of course ;-). As do we all. But there are > only so many hours in the day, and rejiggering pg_dump's rules about > how to dump PLs is just way down the to-do list. I'm going to go do > something with more tangible benefit, like see if we can make its > REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW commands come out at the right time.
+1 to all of that. I'm only arguing that there's a difference between the things that are worth fixing and the things that are formally bugs. This may not be worth fixing, but I think it's formally a bug, because you could easily expect it to work and there's no user-facing documentation anywhere that says it doesn't. However, I'm no doubt about the relative priority of this vs. the other issue you mention. -- 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
