Re: UNION and pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bryan Lee Nuse
Subject Re: UNION and pg_restore
Date
Msg-id BA8E345938B48C42A2F124851A65C00B41C97A91@BL2PRD0210MB349.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: UNION and pg_restore  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: UNION and pg_restore
List pgsql-general
Thanks, Tom, for your helpful explanation and suggestions.

> Now you're doubtless wondering why Postgres doesn't dodge this ambiguity
> for you.

This is exactly what I was wondering, of course.  And I follow the reasoning behind why it cannot, at present.  If
Postgrescan't ensure that the view definition is valid SQL, though, what about the (seemingly more manageable) idea of
providingsome kind of notice when that definition is not re-loadable?  Perhaps pg_dump could do this?   

Maybe that sounds like hand-holding, and I suspect the response will be "always test your backup before you need it!"
Andcertainly I've learned my lesson about that.  Believe me, I don't mean to "request" anything here, merely raise the
pointthat for users that rely heavily on interdependent VIEWs, a cascade of errors flowing back from pg_restore can
makefor a pretty frightening moment. 

Thanks,
Bryan


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alejandro Carrillo
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dirtyread doesnt work
Next
From: Phil Sorber
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dirtyread doesnt work