Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Tom thought this might require an archive version dump, but I'm not
>> sure. The tags are more of an informational string for human
>> consumption, not strictly part of the archive format.
> Hm, the TOC entry, with its tag changed, is part of the dump, and this
> is written in the archive, but the shape of TocEntry does not change
> so this is really debatable.
I had in mind that we would add a separate field for tag's schema name to
TocEntry, which surely would require an archive format number bump.
As the patch is presented, I agree with Peter that it does not really
need a format number bump. The question that has to be answered is
whether this solution is good enough? You could not trust it for
automated processing of tags --- it's easy to think of cases in which the
schema/object name separation would be ambiguous. So is the tag really
"strictly for human consumption"? I'm not sure about that.
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
