Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.

> I'm in favor of making v12 act like the older branches now do, and
> requiring "-f -" only as of v13. Yeah, the transition will be a
> little slower, but this feature is not of such huge value that it
> really justifies breaking scripts with zero notice.

The recovery.conf changes provided absolutely zero value in this
release and breaks a great deal more things.

This argument simply doesn't hold with what we've done historically or
even in this release, so, no, I don't agree that it makes sense to
revert this change any more than it makes sense to revert the
recovery.conf changes. Maybe, if this had come up over the summer and
this agreement came out that these changes weren't worth the breakage
that they cause, we could have reverted them, but that ship has sailed
at this point.

Thanks,

Stephen