On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:04:12AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> I'm not; Jeff Janes is. But you shouldn't be holding your breath
> >>> anyway, since it's 9.3 material at this point.
> >
> >> I agree we can't back-patch that change, but then I think we ought to
> >> consider back-patching some variant of Tatsuo's patch. Maybe it's not
> >> reasonable to thunk an arbitrary number of relation names in there on
> >> one line, but how about 1000 relations per LOCK statement or so? I
> >> guess we'd need to see how much that erodes the benefit, but we've
> >> certainly done back-branch rearrangements in pg_dump in the past to
> >> fix various kinds of issues, and this is pretty non-invasive.
> >
> > I am not convinced either that this patch will still be useful after
> > Jeff's fix goes in, ...
>
> But people on older branches are not going to GET Jeff's fix.
FYI, if it got into Postgres 9.2, everyone upgrading to Postgres 9.2
would benefit because pg_upgrade uses the new cluster's pg_dumpall.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
