Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cktEi-0006O8-DE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:03:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cktEi-00059o-04 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:03:40 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cktDC-0006cZ-2M for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:02:06 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([72.66.115.51]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cktD8-000481-J9 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:02:05 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ED6445F796; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:01:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:01:01 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: Michael Banck , Jim Nasby , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering? Message-ID: <20170306140101.GQ9812@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <8f64786e-824d-7c0d-33a6-3d9e1c8e9fde@2ndquadrant.com> <33b25c65-94f1-6ff6-c717-61a56294a255@2ndquadrant.com> <75409fb1-bd96-25c2-f6b0-c24e28ed2684@2ndquadrant.com> <65049c27-96bf-317b-b435-931f6041f94c@BlueTreble.com> <67d35333-ef65-074a-b2be-52440f245e43@2ndquadrant.com> <753dcafc-a648-9041-e9ca-e405cd4498f4@2ndquadrant.com> <20170306083342.GA8374@nighthawk.caipicrew.dd-dns.de> <2605f6d0-8444-528e-4e38-6b13968cfeb7@2ndquadrant.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E3622+V2HkAXKcIj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2605f6d0-8444-528e-4e38-6b13968cfeb7@2ndquadrant.com> X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/ X-Info: http://www.snowman.net X-Operating-System: Linux/3.13.0-91-generic (x86_64) X-Uptime: 09:00:53 up 240 days, 15:25, 12 users, load average: 0.20, 0.23, 0.17 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org --E3622+V2HkAXKcIj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 3/6/17 03:33, Michael Banck wrote: > > Would this be a candidate for backpatching, or is the behaviour change > > in pg_dump trumping the issues it solves? >=20 > Unless someone literally has a materialized view on pg_policy, it > wouldn't make a difference, so I'm not very keen on bothering to > backpatch this. Agreed. Thanks! Stephen --E3622+V2HkAXKcIj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYvWudAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVrM0P/2tEpfMiB51yu5bimNpBQFQI Tj2vG4HQNp/SMO/UYWiPSVBZ9XRtsUDokqnDsGBh7dSDXlECFnltdUCX8PskNuru k/aO2OqmorM1GRW5zvCaeQ4VBTq2waRiE0AcBphSTus4bw2Fl/pMygwnHZO1o8a8 fBWmxb0G2yPJJhSBBahT5vvikd7LPZzSECQYrFOVrCW4gqQQM8jcmVEj+ZxkyvYk Qs4+pbeuZleNhhlPoprMvN8xluoEz2qSvAlhIGCxnefFOVzU/Ts/bURW8R2uOzhI QTiGwRczrWXxv+AUJgSLOwpf5AshXs9U3eBvGWEvQx2NR0sUmZ/qXfdhoees88HA oKWP3FuzNaxmjHu0TOWB0QA7QBxJ7IsUl/y4BJfkedxszJwJrjs41Xw3lIWw9LMt AoRgnckHD+pM0h0c05/GSYzuCEsac8BqDbszeAyVnjaD+6xYxRgSU068jfQ0jZOs wNoLU7lvdS+C0pNefaWLcYaO1QuP2nLJjAxBR+jnEgNwo1tAhXR20tk+k9CNTXYR 8ysE4BVVP9PL3Ox8qmwSZ0lwmMGdt52DI73CX+0Hh4Oq259Jgy1TPr7pVcTo5eF0 p1CziGf+5nxWTk3ik43HjIyuf1ODZBd+Gk1UN9R1Y9ds+QcLRsO1U14hWDsKgZXW mShSeK3sAElUUrvj8QCD =Y7YY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E3622+V2HkAXKcIj--