Seems like this might be a good idea to avoid the type of failure
exhibited in bug #8128. We don't care too much about the readability
of the dump script created during an upgrade, so it's hard to see a
downside.

    regards, tom lane

Search Discussions

  • Greg Stark at May 1, 2013 at 1:08 am

    On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Seems like this might be a good idea to avoid the type of failure
    exhibited in bug #8128. We don't care too much about the readability
    of the dump script created during an upgrade, so it's hard to see a
    downside.
    Huh. I thought you were talking about quoting identifiers in an SQL
    dump. But you're not, you're talking about quoting identifiers in sql
    being sent to the server during the pg_dump process. Why did pg_dump
    ever not quote all such identifiers?


    --
    greg
  • Tom Lane at May 1, 2013 at 1:23 am

    Greg Stark writes:
    Huh. I thought you were talking about quoting identifiers in an SQL
    dump. But you're not, you're talking about quoting identifiers in sql
    being sent to the server during the pg_dump process. Why did pg_dump
    ever not quote all such identifiers?
    Well, readability of those commands is worth something too, but in any
    case the short answer is that pg_dump has only one quote-an-identifier
    function, not different ones for server commands and final output.

        regards, tom lane
  • Greg Stark at May 1, 2013 at 1:29 am

    On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Well, readability of those commands is worth something too, but in any
    case the short answer is that pg_dump has only one quote-an-identifier
    function, not different ones for server commands and final output.
    Well for the final output one reason it's nice not to quote is that it
    makes it easier to use the SQL generated by --inserts on a
    non-postgres database. Mainly I'm thinking of the case issue but also
    some databases use strange quoting rules.

    --
    greg
  • Bruce Momjian at May 2, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:55:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
    Seems like this might be a good idea to avoid the type of failure
    exhibited in bug #8128. We don't care too much about the readability
    of the dump script created during an upgrade, so it's hard to see a
    downside.
    Fine with me.

    --
       Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
       EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

       + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedApr 30, '13 at 11:55p
activeMay 2, '13 at 11:41p
posts5
users3
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase