Horton

Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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: 2019-11-05T14:46:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general 
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
>> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
>> the very beginning [1].  That is, first make "-f -" available, and
>> make it required only in some later version.  If we'd back-patched
>> the optional feature back in April, it might've been okay to require
>> it in v12, but we failed to provide any transition period.

> ... just like we didn't provide any transistion period for the
> recovery.conf changes.

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.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Change pg_restore -f- to dump to stdout instead of to ./-