Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I think it may be time to bite the bullet and change that (including
>> breaking dumpSequence() into two separate functions).  I'm a little bit
>> worried about the compatibility implications of back-patching such a
>> change, though.  Is it likely that anybody out there is depending on the
>> fact that, eg, pg_dump --section=pre-data currently includes SEQUENCE SET
>> items?  Personally I think it's more likely that that'd be seen as a
>> bug, but ...

FWIW, +1

> Specifically, I'm thinking this, which looks rather bulky but most of
> the diff is from reindenting the guts of dumpSequence().

I see that you commited that patch, thanks a lot Tom!

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support