On 5 August 2016 at 05:03, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> I'm all for an elegant solution here though at some point having a working
> solution now beats waiting for someone to willingly dive more deeply into
> pg_dump. I too seem to recall previous proposals for COMMON ON CURRENT
> DATABASE ye
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston
> > wrote:
> > The fact that pg_dump is emitting COMMENT ON DATABASE at all is
> > fundamentally wrong given the existing division-of-labor decisions,
> > namely that pg_d
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> The fact that pg_dump is emitting COMMENT ON DATABASE at all is
> fundamentally wrong given the existing division-of-labor decisions,
> namely that pg_dump is responsible for objects within a database
> not for dat
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Moving to -hackers since this is getting into details
>
> Bug Report # 14247
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> > Do you have an opinion on this following?
>>
>> I think the real prob
Moving to -hackers since this is getting into details
Bug Report # 14247
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > Do you have an opinion on this following?
>
> I think the real problem in this area is that the division of labor
> we have between pg_dump
