* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes: > > That is exactly what I think is "to big a promise" - I don't think we > > can actually guarantee that this will fix the dump/restore issue (well > > the dump might load but say the 30000 lines of plpgsql using dynamic SQL > > will still be broken). > > Yeah, that's a mighty good point. We are certainly not going to try to > fix the contents of function bodies. The only things we could possibly > fix that we don't handle today (when using the newer pg_dump) are > references in views, check constraint expressions, etc.
Erm, I don't know that we deal with function-body problems today, even
when using the newer version of pg_dump, do we? Don't we set
check_function_bodies off, meaning they won't hit the problem till they
try to run the function? We use $ quoting for the function bodies
entirely otherwise...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
