On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:42:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 10:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It's possible to support this: the group > >> and the user will now really be the same entity, ie a role that has both > >> its own login privileges and members. > > > Assuming you actually want to unify the two objects. That might well be > > the common case, but will it always be true? > > As compared to what? I didn't like the notion of auto-renaming one of > the roles, if that's what you're suggesting. That seems well outside > pg_dump's charter.
If you want something renamed, you can handle that case by just renaming it before you do the dump, but it would be nice if pg_dump would raise a nice big warning when this condition exists so you're aware of it. Or maybe even refuse to run unless you supply some command line option to over-ride. I don't think we should morph the two together by default either, because that's very possibly not what the user originally intended. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
