Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> Certainly not desired by a number of people I have talked to, but I don't have
>> much hope in seeing the behavoir change... perhaps someday if we get around
>> to merging pg_dump and pg_dumpall....
> I have never heard anyone say the current behavior is something they desired.
So put forward a worked-out proposal for some other behavior.
My first thought is that the -c and -C options create a lot of the
issues in this area. -c in particular is evidently meant for merging a
dump into a database that already contains unrelated objects. (In fact
you could argue that the *default* behavior is meant for this, -c just
changes the result for conflicts.) It seems unlikely that having
pg_dump issue ALTER DATABASE SET commands is a good idea in all of these
I'm also wondering why it'd be bright to treat ALTER ... SET properties
different from, say, database owner and encoding properties.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-30 04:57:03|
|Subject: A new take on the foot-gun meme|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-06-30 03:30:08|
|Subject: Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re:ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump)|