Mark Hollomon wrote: > Correct. I don't know why anyone would want to change the definition of > (say) int48eq, but if we are going to allow them to do so, we should be > careful to allow them to backup and restore such a change. Yes, and it is also important that if such weirdos exist, they are allowed to backup this type of change separately from the databases. --Gene
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg... Ross J. Reedstrom
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dum... Mark Hollomon
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts abo... selkovjr
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects... Tom Lane