On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> This argument seems a bit irrelevant to me. pg_dump doesn't get to pick
>> and choose what will be in the database it's told to dump. If we're
>
> Sure.
>
>> going to do something like what Joel wants, we have to have file naming
>> conventions for operator and cast objects. So we can't just leave them
>> out of the conversation (or if we do, we shouldn't be surprised when the
>> ensuing design sucks).
>
> I guess what we're saying is that at this point we can pick non user
> friendly naming rules, like pg_operator/<oid>.sql or something like
> that, OID based. Impacted users might as well learn about extensions.
I think that would defeat some of the human-readability goals that
people have for this feature, not to mention that it would lose the
ability to do diff -r between a dump produced on cluster A and a dump
produced on cluster B.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
