Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-05 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 14:24:40 -0400, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The following is still a problem in current cvs (as of 2 hours ago). Not any more ;-) Thanks. I tried it out and it is now working for me. ---(end

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-04 Thread Bruno Wolff III
The following is still a problem in current cvs (as of 2 hours ago). Normally I wouldn't bug people about this again this soon, but with talk of a release candidate next week I wanted to make sure that it wasn't forgotten. On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 20:14:03 -0500, Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-04 Thread Robert Creager
When grilled further on (Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:50:27 -0500), Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] confessed: The following is still a problem in current cvs (as of 2 hours ago). Normally I wouldn't bug people about this again this soon, but with talk of a release candidate next week I wanted to make

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have added this to the 7.4 open items list: Fix pg_dump of CREATE TABLE test (col1 BOOLEAN CONSTRAINT test CHECK (col1)) --- Bruno Wolff III wrote: The following is still a problem in current cvs (as of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The following is still a problem in current cvs (as of 2 hours ago). Not any more ;-) regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have added this to the 7.4 open items list: Fix pg_dump of CREATE TABLE test (col1 BOOLEAN CONSTRAINT test CHECK (col1)) Fixed now. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-29 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 23:16:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: If you are referring to my patch, Bruce - that does not fix it. Mine only addresses psql. I don't think that pg_dump uses pg_get_constraintdef(). It's probably a side

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 23:16:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: If you are referring to my patch, Bruce - that does not fix it. Mine only addresses psql. I don't think that pg_dump uses

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-29 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are referring to my patch, Bruce - that does not fix it. Mine only addresses psql. It strikes me that maybe your patch should add parens always, rather than just in the prettyprint case. I don't think that pg_dump uses

[HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-28 Thread Bruno Wolff III
If you have a check constraint that tests if a boolean column is not false by just using the column name, pg_dump doesn't include parens around the check constraint which causes a syntax error when reloading the database. Using the following to create a table: create table test (col1 boolean

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have a fix for this in the patch queue and it will be applied in 24 hours. If you want to try it, it is at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches --- Bruno Wolff III wrote: If you have a check

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-28 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
If you are referring to my patch, Bruce - that does not fix it. Mine only addresses psql. I don't think that pg_dump uses pg_get_constraintdef(). It's probably a side effect of switching from using consrc to conbin. Chris Bruce Momjian wrote: I have a fix for this in the patch queue and it

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump bug in 7.4

2003-09-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: If you are referring to my patch, Bruce - that does not fix it. Mine only addresses psql. I don't think that pg_dump uses pg_get_constraintdef(). It's probably a side effect of switching from using consrc to conbin. Oh, yea. If forgot the pretty printing