Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> Perhaps we could change the back branches so that they interpret
> Tom> "-f -" as "write to stdout", but without enforcing that you use
> Tom> that syntax.

> We should definitely do that.

> Tom> Alternatively, we could revert the v12 behavior change. On the
> Tom> whole that might be the wiser course. I do not think the costs and
> Tom> benefits of this change were all that carefully thought through.

> Failing to specify -d is a _really fricking common_ mistake for
> inexperienced users, who may not realize that the fact that they're
> seeing a ton of SQL on their terminal is not the normal result.
> Seriously, this comes up on a regular basis on IRC (which is why I
> suggested initially that we should do something about it).

No doubt, but that seems like a really poor excuse for breaking
maintenance scripts in a way that basically can't be fixed. Even
with the change suggested above, scripts couldn't rely on "-f -"
working anytime soon, because you couldn't be sure whether a
back-rev pg_restore had the update or not.

The idea I'm leaning to after more thought is that we should change
*all* the branches to accept "-f -", but not throw an error if you
don't use it. Several years from now, we could put the error back in;
but not until there's a plausible argument that nobody is running
old versions of pg_restore anymore.

regards, tom lane