| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Narayanan V <vnarayanan(dot)email(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore |
| Date: | 2018-10-28 21:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | E5D20934-D1BC-44E6-AA72-B1917BC46D7A@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 28 Oct 2018, at 19:42, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Function RestoreArchive is called both from pg_dump & pg_restore, so now
>>> the sanity check is not performed for the former (which does not have the
>>> -1 option, though). Moreover, the function is noted "Public", which may
>>> suggest that external tools could take advantage of it, and if so it
>>> suggests that maybe it is not wise to remove the test. Any opinion around?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Wouldn't ropt->single_txn be undefined when called from pg_dump ?
>
> Yes, probably.
pg_dump creates the RestoreOptions struct with NewRestoreOptions() which
allocates it with pg_malloc0(), making single_txn false.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Jungwirth | 2018-10-28 21:29:11 | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-10-28 20:52:13 | Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore |