On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>>> Then again, why is the behavior of schema-qualifying absolutely >>>> everything even desirable? > >>> Well, someone could create a collation in another schema with the same >>> name as a system collation and the command would become ambiguous. > >> Hmm, good point. I guess we don't worry much about this with pg_dump >> because we assume that we're restoring into an empty database (and if >> not, the user gets to keep both pieces). You're applying a higher >> standard here. > > Robert, that's just horsepucky. pg_dump is very careful about schemas. > It's also careful to not schema-qualify names unnecessarily, which is an > intentional tradeoff to improve readability of the dump --- at the cost > that the dump might break if restored into a nonempty database with > conflicting objects. In the case of data passed to event triggers, > there's a different tradeoff to be made: people will probably value > consistency over readability, so always-qualify is probably the right > choice here. But in neither case are we being sloppy.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I know the pg_dump tries to avoid excess schema-qualification for readability among other reasons; what I meant was that Alvaro is applying a higher standard specifically in regards to replayability. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers