Subject: Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
To: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <87866740-ef55-8a6d-6480-499b92aa23c0@BlueTreble.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <8f64786e-824d-7c0d-33a6-3d9e1c8e9fde@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87866740-ef55-8a6d-6480-499b92aa23c0@BlueTreble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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