From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple --table options for other commands |
Date: | 2012-12-11 20:07:29 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobAJ9Xqmk+wD5CH+1FoCo4FUJB8VGzBzFsc2rUaUwgX5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Karl O. Pinc <kop(at)meme(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, the current pg_restore silently
> ignores multiple --table arguments, and seems to use the last
> one. You are introducing a backwards incompatible
> change here. I don't know what to do about it, other
> than perhaps to have the patch go into 10.0 (!?) and
> introduce a patch now that complains about multiple
> --table arguments. On the other hand, perhaps it's
> simply undocumented what pg_restore does when
> given repeated, conflicting, arguments and we're
> free to change this. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't worry about this. I don't think we're obliged to be
bug-compatible with our own prior releases. We've made far bigger
changes for far less meritorious reasons.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-11 20:10:32 | Re: Re: [PATCH 02/14] Add support for a generic wal reading facility dubbed XLogReader |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-12-11 20:05:06 | Re: PageIsAllVisible()'s trustworthiness in Hot Standby |