Re: [HACKERS] Change in "policy" on dump ordering? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Change in "policy" on dump ordering?
Date
Msg-id bcad6d9c-ef3c-9668-ff54-9900955a7b6d@openscg.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Change in "policy" on dump ordering?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3/4/17 11:49 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I wonder whether we should emphasize this change by assigning
>> DO_REFRESH_MATVIEW a higher number, like 100?
> Since there wasn't any interest in that idea, I have committed Jim's
> patch as is.

Thanks. Something else that seems somewhat useful would be to have the 
sort defined by an array of the ENUM values in the correct order, and 
then have the code do the mechanical map generation. I'm guessing the 
only reasonable way to make that work would be to have some kind of a 
last item indicator value, so you know how many values were in the ENUM. 
Maybe there's a better way to do that...
-- 
Jim Nasby, Chief Data Architect, OpenSCG



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0