On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 18:33, Richard Huxton <d...@archonet.com> wrote: > On 30/06/10 17:11, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> My scintillating contribution to this discussion is the observation >>>> that unrestorable dumps suck. >>> >>> No doubt, but is this a real problem in practice? >> >> Magnus tells me that that was what prompted his original email. > > I've done it. Luckily only with a small and fully functioning database so I > could drop the constraint and re-dump it. > > Had a "recent_date" domain that was making sure new diary-style entries had > a plausible date. Of course, two years later my dump can no longer restore > the oldest record :-( > > IMHO The real solution would be something that could strip/rewrite the > constraint on restore rather than trying to prevent people being stupid > though. People *will* just tag their functions as immutable to get them to > work.
Are you sure? The people most likely to "just tag their functions as immutable", are the same ones most unlikely to know *how to do that*. At least for what I think is the majority case - which is calling builtin functions. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
