Hi Peter, On 2/26/16 1:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
It looks like there is still some discussion to be had here about whether a "human readable" solution is enough. Until that's resolved I've marked this patch "Waiting on Author". -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
