On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:35:24AM +0530, tushar wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out. Since this appears to be the expected
> behavior, should we leave it as is rather than attempting to 'fix' or
> improve it?
> if --not-tablespace already specified at the time of pg_dump ( not sure why
> it is ignored; it should throw an error if not supported)
> then it makes sense that it wouldn't be necessary for pg_restore time,
> seems redundant.
I'm not sure. While I agree that it's a little weird, AFAICT it's behaved
this way for a long time, so changing it risks breaking existing scripts.
I suspect that trade-off is not worth it in this case.
--
nathan