pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers@andrewrepp.com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:04:16 -0500
Message-ID: <391720.1677521056@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZgAwiNj-+vGN_MvmTZEXCzh-fFxEtEto4ohQtqyo7USA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1376149.1675268279@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaZ8kDKiQMtDq82Qqqgc5JAfF_UEvc2qa46QwVVLvtMDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1412538.1675283692@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYoSoX8bN_yzabmRDQBNxEaWmjBKPnkZPMUDpPTBy=d4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-WzkjKCmVD9JDKHx09YC+c5kSL_1rHH0kRMyvDHRFoxgw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYJ+3XpW_iYapXN3gwq2MECi7GH8BxuwKFCQPOzLaa3OQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wz=cMRoYHeoac7kscdDNBSYzHKgMvSHX5CFEoE66rimk8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1425446.1675291093@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAApHDvqJM5HxhZSnxESENAHLxTZ=eXKKHxeHfvVe1E8v28woDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1440373.1675299790@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<a7ef6212-f9fe-6826-9640-5dac54327140@dunslane.net>
	<1533086.1675349554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1912821.1676402493@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoaJJUZF41r-5NyEb2mMNXaT6Rf4FK=BWdRun0S758dXDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<369734.1677514834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmobF7EwMQ0bR3ZPKdtuVa7jkixWQpm3AX6jwv6YD041EFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<389892.1677520215@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoZgAwiNj-+vGN_MvmTZEXCzh-fFxEtEto4ohQtqyo7USA@mail.gmail.com>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Sure, but I was responding to your assertion that there's no case in
> which --load-via-partition-root could cause a restore failure. I'm not
> sure that's accurate.

Perhaps it's not, but it's certainly far less likely to cause a restore
failure than the behavior I want to replace.

More to the current point perhaps, I doubt that it's likely enough to
cause a restore failure to justify the existing docs warning.  There
may have been a time when the warning was justified, but I don't believe
it today.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (49+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <391720.1677521056@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../391720.1677521056@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/391720.1677521056@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andrew@dunslane.net, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, pgsqlhackers@andrewrepp.com
  Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
  In-Reply-To: <391720.1677521056@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