On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund 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
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> Isn't the simplest solution just to actually document this?
Given that it's behaved this way since 8.1 (maybe earlier, I'm not sure),
and nobody has complained before, I'm not sure it's worth documenting.
There are lots of undocumented
Andres Freund 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
On 07/25/2017 10:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-07-25 13:18:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Is
On 2017-07-25 13:18:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> Is this assumption, like, documented
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Is this assumption, like, documented someplace?
>> >
>> > Uh, right there?
>>
>> I don't
On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Is this assumption, like, documented someplace?
> >
> > Uh, right there?
>
> I don't think we can expect end-users to read the code comments to
> determine whether their
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is this assumption, like, documented someplace?
>
> Uh, right there?
I don't think we can expect end-users to read the code comments to
determine whether their apparently-legal SQL is fully supported.
--
Robert Haas
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> pg_dump doesn't really support that scenario, and I don't feel any
>> great need to make it do so. Per the comment in dumpProcLang:
> Is this assumption, like, documented
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> tushar writes:
>> postgres=# CREATE LANGUAGE alt_lang1 HANDLER plpgsql_call_handler;
>> CREATE LANGUAGE
>
> pg_dump doesn't really support that scenario, and I don't feel any
> great need to
tushar writes:
> postgres=# CREATE LANGUAGE alt_lang1 HANDLER plpgsql_call_handler;
> CREATE LANGUAGE
pg_dump doesn't really support that scenario, and I don't feel any
great need to make it do so. Per the comment in dumpProcLang:
* Try to find the
On 25 July 2017 at 12:09, tushar wrote:
> v9.6
>
> postgres=# CREATE LANGUAGE alt_lang1 HANDLER plpgsql_call_handler;
> CREATE LANGUAGE
> postgres=# \q
>
> v10 , run pg_upgrade - failing with this error -
>
> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject_metadata
v9.6
postgres=# CREATE LANGUAGE alt_lang1 HANDLER plpgsql_call_handler;
CREATE LANGUAGE
postgres=# \q
v10 , run pg_upgrade - failing with this error -
pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject_metadata "pg_largeobject_metadata"
pg_restore: creating COMMENT "postgres"
pg_restore: creating SCHEMA
13 matches
Mail list logo