Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies > >>the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? > >>SET dumped_version = 7.3 > >> > >> > > > >Is that id

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-08 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? SET dumped_version = 7.3 Is that identifying the backend version, or the pg_dump version? Without a solid

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies > > the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? > > SET dumped_version = 7.3 > > Is that identifying the backend version, or the pg_dump version? > >

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies > the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? > SET dumped_version = 7.3 Is that identifying the backend version, or the pg_dump version? Without a solid rationale for

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Rod Taylor
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 21:31, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies > > the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? > > > > SET dumped_version = 7.3 > > With something like that, does it have to be reissued after ever

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Should we add a variable that is set from the dump filew that identifies the version of PostgreSQL that generated the dump? SET dumped_version = 7.3 With something like that, does it have to be reissued after every \connect in the dump? Chris ---(end of broadcast)--

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more > > general. I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used > > to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing. An even more > > general idea would

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more > general. I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used > to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing. An even more > general idea would be to have something like "restore_m

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more > > general. I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used > > to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing. > > I think I'd prefer to k

Re: [HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we should change the "check_function_bodies" to something more > general. I like "restore_validation_mode" because it could also be used > to disable foreign key checks which we are discussing. I think I'd prefer to keep foreign key check disabl

[HACKERS] Disabling function validation

2003-10-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Given that new languages don't tend to appear out of the blue, I think > >> it's reasonable to design the feature considering the languages currently > >> available. > > I think that position is sufficient