Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly
Date
Msg-id 4145.983850023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
Responses Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly
Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly
List pgsql-hackers
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> At 22:26 5/03/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, is it a feature at all?  Or a bug?  ISTM poor
>> form for a data-only restore to assume it may turn off all pre-existing
>> triggers.

> Do you recall any of the history - why was it added in the first place?

No, I don't recall.  It might be worth digging in the archives.

> I vaguely recall something about doing a schema restore then data
> restore. In this case, you need to disable triggers, but maybe that
> should be an option only. ie. default to no messing with pg_class, but
> if the user requests it, output code to disable triggers.

Well, mumble.  I guess the question is what are the triggers going to
*do*?  If they are going to cross-check against tables that may not be
restored yet, then you have a problem if you don't turn them off.  OTOH
it's easy to imagine that this may allow you to load inconsistent data.
'Tis a puzzlement.

For now, I'd be happy if the normal case of a simple restore doesn't
generate warnings.  Improving on that probably takes more thought and
risk than we should be putting in at the end of beta.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot: kill -9 postmaster
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: pg_dump scripts are no longer ordinary-user friendly