On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to > >> include the table name, so it might look like: > >> > >> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename > > > +1. I noticed that this limitation is present for triggers (as you > > mentioned), constraints, fk constraints and RLS policies which should > > be completed with a table name. > > How can we do this without an archive format version bump ... or were > you assuming that that would be an acceptable price? (It's not like > we haven't done those before, so maybe it is.)
Yes, I am assuming that's worth the price, many people run similar relation schemas on the same database with different schema names. And Peter has a point that the current format can be confusing for the user. Sorry if I sounded like it was a bug that should be backpatched or something similar, I don't mean that. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
