From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql - -dry-run option |
Date: | 2015-12-17 19:03:55 |
Message-ID: | 13653.1450379035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> when I read a blog
> http://www.depesz.com/2015/12/14/waiting-for-9-6-psql-support-multiple-c-and-f-options-and-allow-mixing-them/
> where is emulated dry-run mode, I though so we can implement it very
> simply.
Not one that is actually reliable. All a script would have to do is
include its own begin/commit commands, and it would override what you
are talking about. It's okay, in my opinion, if the -1 switch is just a
half-baked "best effort" solution. It's not okay to provide a --dry-run
switch that is equally full of holes, because if someone were to actually
rely on it to not execute the script, the possibility of an override would
amount to a security bug.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-12-17 19:14:09 | Re: psql - -dry-run option |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-17 18:58:04 | Re: Fwd: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |