And if this is expected correct behavior it shouldn't throw an error....
This is especially problematic for automated processes, in which you
only want to know when they fail.
Its possible to ignore error messages, but then when something real does
go wrong you lose those.
Don't get me wrong I know this is not the end of the world, but I also
think its the wrong behavior, one that is problematic for me.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jacob Champlin" <jacobc(at)rentec(dot)com> writes:
>> psql -f restore.sql
>> results in:
>> psql:/var/lib/pgsql/backups/restore.sql:11: ERROR: current user cannot be
>> psql:/var/lib/pgsql/backups/restore.sql:12: ERROR: role "postgres" already
>> psql:/var/lib/pgsql/backups/restore.sql:17: ERROR: role "webapp" cannot be
>> dropped because some objects depend on it
>> DETAIL: access to database rief
>> 113 objects in database rief
>> psql:/var/lib/pgsql/backups/restore.sql:18: ERROR: role "webapp" already
> And? The restore would've proceeded anyway.
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Gary Jay Peters||Date: 2008-04-24 18:19:44|
|Subject: BUG #4128: The postmaster.opts.default file is begin ignored|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-24 16:44:14|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4127: pg_dumpall -c unable to be restored without error |