Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
Date
Msg-id 21134.1370099273@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
List pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something
>> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in
>> this case.

> That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix
> existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any
> other opinions out there?

I don't like this approach much.

1. It does nothing to fix the issue in *existing* databases, which
won't have pg_depend entries like this.

2. In general, we have assumed that properties of tables, such as
indexes and constraints, cannot be independent members of extensions.
It's not clear to me why rules should be different.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: detecting binary backup in progress