On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 17:12, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> Considering that the issue appears to have been ignored from
>>> mid-February until early October, I don't see why it should now get to
>>> jump to the head of the queue. Other people may have different
>>> opinions, of course.
>>
>> Added. :-)
>>
>
> I'm just starting to look at this, by way of a break in staring at pg_dump
> code ;-). This just needs to be backpatched to 9.1, is that right?
Yes please.
9.0 did not have this problem (or at least if it did it was a separate issue).
