Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> If I'm understanding you correctly, fixing the bogus dependency thing is
> more an insurance policy than fixing a case (other than the constraint
> dependency) that is known to be broken.
Right. That's the only *known* broken case, and it does seem like
we'd have heard by now about others. Also, what I have in mind will
cause at least HEAD, and however far we back-patch it, to actively
complain if it runs into a case where the sections can't be separated,
rather than silently outputting items in a funny order as now. So
if there are any more cases lurking I think we'll hear about them
quickly, and then we can evaluate whether further backpatching is
required.
> (There's another bug to do with parallel pg_restore and clustering that
> Andrew Hammond raised back in January, that I want to fix when I get
> some time.)
Hm, I guess I've forgotten that one?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
