Re: Further cleanup of pg_dump/pg_restore item selection code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further cleanup of pg_dump/pg_restore item selection code
Date: 2018-01-25 17:02:59
Message-ID: 14524.1516899779@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Should pg_restore fail if asked to --create without a database entry in the
> TOC?

Yeah, I wondered about that too. This patch makes it a non-issue for
archives created with v11 or later pg_dump, but there's still a hazard
if you're restoring from an archive made by an older pg_dump. Is it
worth putting in logic to catch that?

Given the lack of field complaints, I felt fixing it going forward is
sufficient, but there's room to argue differently.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-01-25 17:09:23 Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node
Previous Message Arthur Zakirov 2018-01-25 16:51:58 Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries