| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Date: | 2020-09-11 19:54:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobF1RNHS4dDDJXpVVwAO3MGaWjVsmP+Yqc7pt7VmaEcQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:23 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Another option would be to have pg_dump take a strictness mode option. I don't think the option should have anything to do with postfix operators specifically, but be more general like --dump-incompatible-objects vs. --omit-incompatible-objects vs. --error-on-incompatible-objects vs. --do-your-best-to-fixup-incompatible-objects, with one of those being the default (and with all of them having better names). If --error-on-incompatible-objects were the default, that would behave as Robert recommended upthread.
>
> I can totally see an objection to the added complexity of such options, so I'm really just putting this out on the list for comment.
I'm not opposed to Tom's proposal. I just wanted to raise the issue
for discussion.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-09-11 19:56:59 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-09-11 19:41:48 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |