On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> I think we should amend the archive tag for these kinds of objects to
> >> include the table name, so it might look like:
> >>
> >> 2153; 2604 39696 DEFAULT public test a rolename
>
> > +1. I noticed that this limitation is present for triggers (as you
> > mentioned), constraints, fk constraints and RLS policies which should
> > be completed with a table name.
>
> How can we do this without an archive format version bump ... or were
> you assuming that that would be an acceptable price? (It's not like
> we haven't done those before, so maybe it is.)
Yes, I am assuming that's worth the price, many people run similar
relation schemas on the same database with different schema names. And
Peter has a point that the current format can be confusing for the
user. Sorry if I sounded like it was a bug that should be backpatched
or something similar, I don't mean that.
--
Michael