Re: pg_dump --with-* options

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump --with-* options
Date: 2025-06-12 19:16:19
Message-ID: 350edd98-7e91-4b63-b393-ba8b681b0799@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12.06.25 17:14, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 15:47 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> My initial guess was that --with-data can override --no-data.  That
>> would have been pretty standard "last option wins" behavior.  But
>> pg_dump rejects that.  Personally, I think that is kind of wrong.
>
> Do we have other options that are order-sensitive?

I think most of them are. For example:

psql -p 5432 -p 5433
initdb --data-checksums --no-data-checksums
postgres --shared-buffers=1GB --shared-buffers=2GB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-06-12 19:53:38 Re: Use RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP where possible
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2025-06-12 19:12:05 Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry