From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:59 -0500
Message-ID: <8f64786e-824d-7c0d-33a6-3d9e1c8e9fde@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87866740-ef55-8a6d-6480-499b92aa23c0@BlueTreble.com>
References: <87866740-ef55-8a6d-6480-499b92aa23c0@BlueTreble.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2/21/17 14:58, Jim Nasby wrote:
> AFAICT in older versions only object types that absolutely had to wait
> for DO_POST_DATA_BOUNDARY would do so. More recently though, objects are
> being added after that (presumably because it's easier than renumbering
> everything in dbObjectTypePriority).
Is there any specific assignment that you have concerns about?
> Is this change a good or bad idea? Should there be an official guide for
> where new things go?
The comment above dbObjectTypePriority explains it, doesn't it?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
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: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com
Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
In-Reply-To: <8f64786e-824d-7c0d-33a6-3d9e1c8e9fde@2ndquadrant.com>
* 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