On 04/05/2016 09:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Given the lack of any other complaints about this, I'm okay with the
approach as presented
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Given the lack of any other complaints about this, I'm okay with the
>>> approach as presented. (I haven't read the patch in d
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
>> need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is
>> whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for
>> automated processin
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given the lack of any other complaints about this, I'm okay with the
>> approach as presented. (I haven't read the patch in detail, though.)
>
> FWIW, I am still of the opinion that the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given the lack of any other complaints about this, I'm okay with the
> approach as presented. (I haven't read the patch in detail, though.)
FWIW, I am still of the opinion that the last patch sent by Peter is
in a pretty good shape.
--
Michael
On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
> need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is
> whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for
> automated processing of tags --- it's easy to think
Hi Peter,
On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human
>>> consumption, not stric
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human
>> consumption, not strictly part of the archive format.
> Hm, the TOC entry,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/29/16 1:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to
>>> > include the table name, so it might look like:
>>> >
>>> > 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename
>>> >
>>>
On 1/29/16 1:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to
>> > include the table name, so it might look like:
>> >
>> > 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename
>> >
>> > Comments?
> +1. I noticed that this limitation is present for t
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some dump objects whose names are not unique on a schema level have
> insufficient details in the dump TOC. For example, a column default
> might have a TOC entry like this:
>
> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public a rolename
> I think we should amend the archive tag for the
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to
> >> include the table name, so it might look like:
> >>
> >> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFA
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to
>> include the table name, so it might look like:
>>
>> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename
> +1. I noticed that this limitatio
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some dump objects whose names are not unique on a schema level have
> insufficient details in the dump TOC. For example, a column default
> might have a TOC entry like this:
>
> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public a rolename
>
> Note that thi
Some dump objects whose names are not unique on a schema level have
insufficient details in the dump TOC. For example, a column default
might have a TOC entry like this:
2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public a rolename
Note that this only contains the schema name and the column name, but
not the table
15 matches
Mail list logo
