Re: pg_dump future problem.
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_dump future problem. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 27926.1052148148@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_dump future problem. (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_dump future problem.
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> Good point. It's only in the source code. I thought I had updated the docs
> as well...
Actually, I think the sequence of events was that we neglected to remove
the statement in the source code when we fixed the documentation.
3-parameter setval is documented because it solves a problem that users
have --- pg_dump is not the only application that needs to do this.
> My recollection is that setting is_called is more fragile than just setting
> the sequence value, so it not wise to use in general.
Doesn't look that way to me; we're setting several fields of the
sequence record no matter what. Perhaps your recollection predates
Vadim's last rewrite of the sequence code?
> I'm not actually suggesting starting over. Just presenting a nicer
> interface and fixing a bug in the process, rather than building yet another
> user-visible function as a band-aid solution.
But the proposed "nicer interface" *introduces* a bug, namely the
inability to preserve is_called, which is exactly the pg_dump bug
that 3-parameter setval was invented to fix. I do not want to go
backwards in the name of a "nicer interface".
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: