Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited fromtemplate1

2000-11-17 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: > To bring this back from future nice solutions to the reality of what > to do today, do people like the "template0" solution for now (7.1)? > I can work on it if so. Go for it. Jan -- #==# # It's easier t

Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited fromtemplate1

2000-11-09 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: > Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Where would you store the value if not in pg_database? > > No other ideas at the moment. I was just wondering whether there was any > way to delete it entirely, but seems like we want to have the value for > template0 available. The

Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited fromtemplate1

2000-11-09 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: > > Do we still need the lastsysoid column in pg_database if we do things > this way? Seems like what you really want is to suppress all the > objects that are in template0, so you really only need one lastsysoid > value, namely template0's. The other entries are useless AFAICS.

Re: [HACKERS] Unhappy thoughts about pg_dump and objects inherited fromtemplate1

2000-11-07 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: > We've hacked up pg_dump so that it won't dump objects inherited from > template1. Unfortunately I have realized there are a couple of serious > problems: > > 1. What if the inherited object is a table or a sequence? Its state may > no longer be the same as it was in template1 (