Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions

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

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

To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>

Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2012-10-25T16:49:52Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

treat-sequence-data-as-data.patch (text/x-patch) patch

I wrote:
> The fact that SEQUENCE SET is considered pre-data has bitten us several
> times already, eg
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-05/msg00084.php

> I think it may be time to bite the bullet and change that (including
> breaking dumpSequence() into two separate functions).  I'm a little bit
> worried about the compatibility implications of back-patching such a
> change, though.  Is it likely that anybody out there is depending on the
> fact that, eg, pg_dump --section=pre-data currently includes SEQUENCE SET
> items?  Personally I think it's more likely that that'd be seen as a
> bug, but ...

Specifically, I'm thinking this, which looks rather bulky but most of
the diff is from reindenting the guts of dumpSequence().

			regards, tom lane