As you can see below, after a rename the check constraint still refers
to 'col' and not 'newname' as pg_constraint.consrc is not updated.
Of course, this functions fine (conbin is still valid) but when it comes
time to do a pg_dump, the database is dumped using the old column name.
It seems this
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 22:28, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Which ones are missing, and should we really be looking at creating a
> > pg_definition_schema instead?
>
> Missing:
>
> Database, schema, table, domain, cast, conversion, function...
>
> Maybe a definition schema might be better...
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you can see below, after a rename the check constraint still refers
> to 'col' and not 'newname' as pg_constraint.consrc is not updated.
The same issue has always existed with regard to pg_attrdef.adsrc.
pg_dump ought to be using the binary column not th
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do not think we need to remove the column.
> Is it ok that the consrc column is not synch'd with conbin? What does
> it provide if it doesn't match?
Documentation of the original form of the constraint, perhaps?
> At very least we should be discouragi
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As you can see below, after a rename the check constraint still refers
> > to 'col' and not 'newname' as pg_constraint.consrc is not updated.
>
> The same issue has always existed with regard to pg_attrdef.ad
> Which ones are missing, and should we really be looking at creating a
> pg_definition_schema instead?
Missing:
Database, schema, table, domain, cast, conversion, function...
Maybe a definition schema might be better.dunno...it would need to use
the pg_get_*def functions anyway methinks.
C
> > As an interface writer, do you prefer dealing with functions like
> > pg_get_constraintdef() or a view like the information schema provides?
> >
>
> I would think it is easier to get the information from the information
> schema. That's most like what we're doing now getting the information
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 11:11, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 22:28, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Which ones are missing, and should we really be looking at creating
> a
> > > pg_definition_schema instead?
> >
> > Missing:
> >
> > Database, schema, table, domain, cast, conversion
