Re: PgQ and pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Martín Marqués
Subject Re: PgQ and pg_dump
Date
Msg-id CAPdiE1xwH8cY9WTUW6zvoeuO3uOqADQ+XN+V9p729gW=+G8T9w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PgQ and pg_dump  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PgQ and pg_dump  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Hi Michael,

2016-06-15 5:00 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>:
> Martin wrote:
>> I wonder if this is the desirable way of handling pgq, or if those
>> tables should be dumped. I'm starting to think that this is a PgQ bug,
>> or maybe it's not a good idea to install PgQ as an extension.
>
> As I am looking at that I would qualify that as a bug in pg_dump.
> Schemas can be part of the extension definition and be linked to it,
> and tables created on top of the schema defined in the extension
> should really be dumped..

How would the recovery process work? We expect the schema to be there
when restoring the tables?

That seems sensible.

I'll file a bug report later and maybe move this thread to -hackers.

Regards,

--
Martín Marqués                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: PgQ and pg_dump
Next
From: Andreas Joseph Krogh
Date:
Subject: Question about RUM-index