Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump

At 20:30 29/06/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Oh, you're right, it does not.  So you'd first have to run through the
>table and verify that the constraint holds for each existing tuple.
>Doesn't seem like a big deal though...
>

Does this mean somebody is likely to do it? It'd certainly make
backup/restore more reliable.

I'm almost at the point of asking for testers with the revised
pg_dump/pg_restore, so I'll go with what I have for now, but it would make
life a lot less messy. Since the new version *allows* table restoration
intermixed with metadata, and in any order, I need to update pg_class
repeatedly (I assume there may be system triggers that need to execute when
metadata is changed).


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/