| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2003-12-15 04:09:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3FDD33E1.2090202@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yeah. Don't you think that should preserve comments on large objects,
> now that such comments are alleged to be a supported facility?
>
>
>>How does pg_dump dump the blobs?
>
>
> It dumps them, reloads them (which causes them to be assigned new OIDs)
> and then runs around and tries to fix up references to them to have the
> correct OIDs. Possibly that last pass could be extended to include
> pg_description. Not sure of details though.
OK, I'll look into it.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-12-15 12:14:59 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 04:04:04 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |