Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 22:26 5/03/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, is it a feature at all? Or a bug? ISTM poor
>> form for a data-only restore to assume it may turn off all pre-existing
>> triggers.
> Do you recall any of the history - why was it added in the first place?
No, I don't recall. It might be worth digging in the archives.
> I vaguely recall something about doing a schema restore then data
> restore. In this case, you need to disable triggers, but maybe that
> should be an option only. ie. default to no messing with pg_class, but
> if the user requests it, output code to disable triggers.
Well, mumble. I guess the question is what are the triggers going to
*do*? If they are going to cross-check against tables that may not be
restored yet, then you have a problem if you don't turn them off. OTOH
it's easy to imagine that this may allow you to load inconsistent data.
'Tis a puzzlement.
For now, I'd be happy if the normal case of a simple restore doesn't
generate warnings. Improving on that probably takes more thought and
risk than we should be putting in at the end of beta.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
