Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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