Andres Freund writes:
> There is no object 1832 in the dump since that was ommitted in favor of
> the constraint 1833 which internally creates the index. So what we need
> to do is to make the comment depend on the constraint instead.
> With the attached patch we get: [ the right thing ]
Applied
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2013-06-27 10:29:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Your proposed patch will only fix the problem for dumps created after
>> it ships. In the past, we've tried to deal with this type of issue by
>> having pg_restore fix up the dependencies when reading a dump, so that
>> it w
On 2013-06-27 10:29:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ... So what we need
> > to do is to make the comment depend on the constraint instead.
> Your proposed patch will only fix the problem for dumps created after
> it ships. In the past, we've tried to deal with this type of issue by
> having pg_rest
Andres Freund writes:
> The problem is that pg_dump makes the comment depend on the index
> instead of the constraint:
Yeah, I figured that out yesterday, but hadn't gotten to writing a patch
yet.
> ... So what we need
> to do is to make the comment depend on the constraint instead.
Your propos
Hi Lloyd,
On 2013-06-26 23:43:00 +, lal...@fhcrc.org wrote:
> I have found the restore will fail when using pg_restore's -j option, with
> more than one core, on a dump that contains a COMMENT INDEX.
> Run this next section to add the table, index, and index comment to the
> test_db database.
