From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql(at)mailpen(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding, was Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster |
Date: | 2021-06-14 13:32:21 |
Message-ID: | 197326.1623677541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 6/10/21 2:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Ouch. That looks like a plain old bug. Let's fix it. IIRC I just used
>> the same logic that we use for pg_dump's --exclude-* options, so we need
>> to check if they have similar issues.
> Peter Eisentraut has pointed out to me that this is documented, albeit a
> bit obscurely for pg_dumpall. But it is visible on the pg_dump page.
Hmm.
> Nevertheless, it's a bit of a POLA violation as we've seen above, and
> I'd like to get it fixed, if there's agreement, both for this pg_dumpall
> option and for pg_dump's pattern matching options.
+1, but the -performance list isn't really where to hold that discussion.
Please start a thread on -hackers.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-14 13:39:12 | Re: recent failures on lorikeet |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-14 13:21:30 | pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding, was Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-14 13:46:06 | pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-14 13:21:30 | pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding, was Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster |