Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, "imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com" <imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com>, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-11-05T15:07:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
On 2019-Nov-05, Tom Lane wrote: > Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition > period. I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one, > either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether > the benefits of the change merit forced breakage. We're not forcing anyone into upgrading. Older versions continue to work, and many people still use those. People who already upgraded and needed a cross-version scriptable mechanism can already use "-f/dev/stdout" as Justin documented in this thread's OP. People upgrading after next week release set can use "-f-". People not upgrading soon can keep their scripts for a while yet. I think this teapot doesn't need the tempest, and nobody's drowning in it anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Change pg_restore -f- to dump to stdout instead of to ./-
- 5ee8f0fe13b4 10.11 landed
- d38635725cad 9.5.20 landed
- 12a51e2ebea7 9.6.16 landed
- 9fb25fda6d56 9.4.25 landed
- 3574c0ac0509 11.6 landed