| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: security labels on databases are bad for dump & restore |
| Date: | 2015-07-23 06:03:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20150723060352.GA1388178@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:42:58PM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote:
> > I like Noah's proposal of having pg_dump --create reproduce all
> > database-level state.
>
> Should it be enabled by default? If so, then wouldn't it make more
> sense to call it --no-create and do the opposite? So, --no-create
> would exclude rather than include database-level information? Would
> enabling it by default cause issues with the current expected use of
> the tool by end users?
While I'd favor optional --no-create if we were designing fresh, it's not
worth breaking user scripts by changing that now.
> How would this handle related global objects? It seems like this part
> could get a little tricky.
Like roles and tablespaces? No need to change their treatment.
> Taking it one step further, would a --all option that dumps all
> databases make sense as well? Of course I know that's probably a
> considerable undertaking and certainly beyond the current scope.
I agree it's outside the scope of fixing $subject.
Thanks,
nm
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-07-23 07:36:04 | Re: compress method for spgist - 2 |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2015-07-23 05:34:32 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |