Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-25 Thread Philip Warner
I'll make the change ASAP. Now in CVS along with PG 7.0 compat. code. Philip Warner| __---_ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |/ - \ (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-20 Thread Jan Wieck
Philip Warner wrote: At 08:42 19/04/01 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: [...] and the required feature to correctly restore the tgconstrrelid is already in the backend, so pg_dump should make use of it No problem there - just tell me how... Add a "FROM opposite-relname"

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-20 Thread Philip Warner
At 11:29 20/04/01 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: Philip Warner wrote: At 08:42 19/04/01 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: and the required feature to correctly restore the tgconstrrelid is already in the backend, so pg_dump should make use of it No problem there - just tell me how...

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-19 Thread Tom Lane
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMHO there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having pg_dump dumping the constraints as special triggers, because they are implemented in PostgreSQL as triggers. ... The advantage of having pg_dump output these constraints as

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-19 Thread Joel Burton
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMHO there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having pg_dump dumping the constraints as special triggers, because they are implemented in PostgreSQL as triggers. ... The advantage of having

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-19 Thread Joel Burton
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMHO there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having pg_dump dumping the constraints as special triggers, because they are implemented in PostgreSQL as triggers. ... The advantage of having

[HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-18 Thread Tom Lane
Joel Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do we know if the problem is in pg_dump, or is there no way to pass the tgconstrrelid value in the CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER statement? IIRC, pg_dump is just failing to transfer the value; it needs to emit an additional clause in the CREATE CONSTRAINT

[HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-18 Thread Joel Burton
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: Joel Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: tgconstrrelid (in pg_trigger) holds table references in a RI trigger. The value in this field is not successfully recreated after a dump/restore. Yes, this problem was noted a couple months ago. AFAIK it was

[HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-18 Thread Philip Warner
At 16:30 18/04/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: IIRC, pg_dump is just failing to transfer the value; it needs to emit an additional clause in the CREATE CONSTRAINT command to do so. From memory, this is one of the non-standard SQL things that pg_dump still does (ie. definining the constraint using

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore

2001-04-18 Thread Philip Warner
At 16:25 18/04/01 -0400, Joel Burton wrote: Do we know if the problem is in pg_dump, or is there no way to pass the tgconstrrelid value in the CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER statement? It's because pg_dump is not designed to dump these constraints *as* constraints. We just need to make pg_dump