Horton

Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2023-02-27T17:02:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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".

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

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

  2. Fix pg_dump for hash partitioning on enum columns.