On Oct27, 2011, at 23:02 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Florian Pflug wrote:
>> On Oct21, 2011, at 16:42 , Phil Sorber wrote:
>>> If you did want to make them immutable, I also like Florian's idea of
>>> a dependency graph. This would make the dumps less readable though.
>>
>> Hm, I kinda reversed my opinion on that, though - i.e., I no longer think
>> that the dependency graph idea has much merit. For two reasons
>>
>> First, dependencies work on OIDs, not on names. Thus, for the dependency
>> machinery to work for GUCs, they'd also need to store OIDs instead of
>> names of referenced schema objects. (Otherwise you get into trouble if
>> objects are renamed)
>>
>> Which of course doesn't work, at least for roles, because roles are
>> shared objects, but referenced objects might be database-local.
>> (search_path, for example).
>
> Is this a TODO?
The idea quoted above, no. But
Downgrade non-immutable (i.e., dependent on database state) checks during"ALTER ROLE/DATABASE SET" to WARNINGs to avoid
breakageduring restore
makes for a fine TODO, I'd say.
best regards,
Florian Pflug