Re: [ADMIN] problems with pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: [ADMIN] problems with pg_restore
Date
Msg-id 1058298650.9981.117.camel@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] problems with pg_restore  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [ADMIN] problems with pg_restore  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Hm.  Evidently not :-(.  The COMMENT ON DATABASE facility is a bit bogus
> anyway (since there's no way to make the comments visible across
> databases).  You might be best advised not to use it.
>
> Hackers: this seems like an extremely bad side-effect of what we thought
> was a simple addition of a helpful check.  I am thinking we should
> either remove the check again, or downgrade it to a WARNING (though I'm
> not quite sure how to phrase the warning ...).  Any thoughts?

How about going the other way and removing the requirement to explicitly
state the database?

COMMENT ON DATABASE IS 'This comment is on the current database.';


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jenny -"
Date:
Subject: locking mechanism
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] problems with pg_restore