From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump is broken for partition tablespaces
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:11:54 -0400
Message-ID: <31403.1555974714@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190422225129.GA6126@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190422225129.GA6126@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Now that I re-read this complaint once again, I wonder if a mismatching
> column order in partitions isn't a thing we ought to preserve anyhow.
> Robert, Amit -- is it by design that pg_dump loses the original column
> order for partitions, when not in binary-upgrade mode?
I haven't looked at the partitioning code, but I am quite sure that that's
always happened for old-style inheritance children, and I imagine pg_dump
is just duplicating that old behavior.
Wasn't there already a patch on the table to change this, though,
by removing the code path that uses inheritance rather than the
binary-upgrade-like solution?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump is broken for partition tablespaces
In-Reply-To: <31403.1555974714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox