On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 18:33, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:
> On 30/06/10 17:11, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation
>>>> that unrestorable dumps suck.
>>>
>>> No doubt, but is this a real problem in practice?
>>
>> Magnus tells me that that was what prompted his original email.
>
> I've done it. Luckily only with a small and fully functioning database so I
> could drop the constraint and re-dump it.
>
> Had a "recent_date" domain that was making sure new diary-style entries had
> a plausible date. Of course, two years later my dump can no longer restore
> the oldest record :-(
>
> IMHO The real solution would be something that could strip/rewrite the
> constraint on restore rather than trying to prevent people being stupid
> though. People *will* just tag their functions as immutable to get them to
> work.
Are you sure? The people most likely to "just tag their functions as
immutable", are the same ones most unlikely to know *how to do that*.
At least for what I think is the majority case - which is calling
builtin functions.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
