Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 4534.978890680@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
Responses Re: Suggested fix for pg_dump
List pgsql-hackers
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
>> Is this OK? Or inappropriate for beta?

> From Tatsuo's example, it looks critical enough that it should be fixed
> before release, and since its a 'support program' issue, not a 'core
> server' issue, ramifications of fixing it aren't as big as if it was a
> 'core server' issue ... go for it

I concur.  This is not a new feature, but a bug fix, and therefore it's
appropriate to do it during beta.  We don't require beta-period bug
fixes to be the smallest possible change that cures the problem.  They
should be good fixes if practical.

One issue however is how confident are we of the alter table add
constraint code?  I'm not sure it's been exercised enough to justify
making pg_dump rely on it ... is anyone willing to spend some time
testing that statement?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Horst Herb
Date:
Subject: Re: A post-7.1 wish-list.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Quite strange crash