Re: sequences and pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Anastasia Lubennikova
Subject Re: sequences and pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id 8741269c-fe04-c496-af92-696f2af5d4f8@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: sequences and pg_upgrade  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: sequences and pg_upgrade  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: sequences and pg_upgrade  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
23.09.2016 21:06, Peter Eisentraut:
> Here is an updated patch set.  Compared to the initial set, I have
> changed pg_dump's sorting priorities so that sequence data is always
> after table data.  This would otherwise have introduced a problem
> because sortDataAndIndexObjectsBySize() only considers consecutive
> DO_TABLE_DATA entries.  Also, I have removed the separate
> --sequence-data switch from pg_dump and made it implicit in
> --binary-upgrade.  (So the previous patches 0002 and 0003 have been
> combined, because it's no longer a separate feature.)
>

The patches are good, no complaints.
But again, I have the same question.
I was confused, why do we always dump sequence data,
because I'd overlooked the --sequence-data key. I'd rather leave this 
option,
because it's quite non intuitive behaviour... /* dump sequence data even in schema-only mode */

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Kellerer
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash Indexes