On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:48:46AM +0200, Dennis Björklund wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > In fact, you could take the ultra pessimistic route and change pg_dump to
> > dump in such a way that it will always work. That should be possible. Say
> > in the order:
>
> That is probably simplest way even if the dumps will be ugly. There might
> also be some places in pg where you can't make the change needed to do it
> like this. But pg have been getting a lot better in this respect with a
> nice sql syntax to do things that you previously could only do by changing
> system tables.
Indeed.
> > I've never had a database with recursive dependancies so maybe I'm
> > underestimating the problems here.
>
> I've had it several times, and I don't think it's that uncommon.
Ok, in your experience, are all depndancy loops either:
- CHECKs or DEFAULTs that refer to functions that don't exist yet
- FUNCTIONs that refer to tables that don't exist yet
Because they can all be solved predefining functions and then fully
declaring them at the end. Are there other possibilities?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> "the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or
> religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
> Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
> - Samuel P. Huntington