From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:00:28 -0500
Message-ID: <7183.1481230828@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161208204106.GI23417@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20160504183952.GE10850@tamriel.snowman.net>
<20161207200915.GZ23417@tamriel.snowman.net>
<729.1481151371@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20161208142116.GC23417@tamriel.snowman.net>
<4955.1481209396@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20161208204106.GI23417@tamriel.snowman.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Ok, thinking a bit more on this and testing, it looks like we record the
> initdb-defined casts as 'pinned' in pg_depend all the way back to 7.3.
> Therefore, we could use that as the gating factor for getFuncs() instead
> of FirstNormalObjectId and then I can also modify getCasts() to exclude
> pinned casts, which should fix pg_dump against 8.0 and earlier.
Don't really like that; won't it make the getFuncs query substantially
more expensive?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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, sfrost@snowman.net
Subject: Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs
In-Reply-To: <7183.1481230828@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