Horton

Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Andrew <pgsqlhackers@andrewrepp.com>
Date: 2023-02-27T17:50:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that's a user error not pg_dump's fault.  Particularly so for hash
>> partitioning, where there is no defensible reason to make the partitions
>> semantically different.

> I am still of the opinion that you're going down a dangerous path of
> redefining pg_dump's mission from "dump and restore the database, as
> it actually exists" to "dump and restore the database, unless the user
> did something that I think is silly".

Let's not attack straw men, shall we?  I'm defining pg_dump's mission
as "dump and restore the database successfully".  Failure to restore
does not help anyone, especially if they are in a disaster recovery
situation where it's not possible to re-take the dump.  It's not like
there's no precedent for having pg_dump tweak things to ensure a
successful restore.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Simplify and speed up pg_dump's creation of parent-table links.

  2. Fix pg_dump for hash partitioning on enum columns.