From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. |
Date: | 2008-03-26 16:39:52 |
Message-ID: | 28709.1206549592@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option.
The proposed TODO item was not about doing this, it was about removing
the option altogether. AFAICS it's a foot-gun and nothing else --- why
do we have it?
BTW, a point I had forgotten is that pg_restore doesn't enforce that it
not be used with a newer server:
/* XXX Should get this from the archive */
AHX->minRemoteVersion = 070100;
AHX->maxRemoteVersion = 999999;
I think this is probably sane, since after all we couldn't enforce that
the plain script output not be loaded into a newer server. But it means
that -i is effectively a no-op for pg_restore, which again begs the
question of why we have it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-26 16:45:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-26 16:34:48 | pgsql: Fix bad spelling and worse grammar in recent doc commits. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-26 16:45:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-03-26 16:29:12 | Re: advancing snapshot's xmin |