Re: Detect supported SET parameters when pg_restore is run

From: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Detect supported SET parameters when pg_restore is run
Date: 2016-09-27 22:57:44
Message-ID: CAKOSWNnmAXV1j3HpX3B4M3bE5FXew9VZhoXM1wjnRcH3-7d8YQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/27/16, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/27/16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (The other thing I'd want here is a --target-version option so that
>> you could get the same output alterations in pg_dump or pg_restore to
>> text. Otherwise it's nigh undebuggable, and certainly much harder
>> to test than it needs to be.)
>
> I thought that way. I'm ready to introduce that parameter, but again,
> I see now it will influence only SET parameters. Does it worth it?

The only reason I have not implemented it was attempt to avoid users
being confused who could think that result of pg_dump (we need it
there for the plain text output) or pg_restore can be converted for
target version to be restored without new features (but now it is
wrong).

--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2016-09-27 23:23:11 Re: LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-27 22:48:19 Re: Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()