From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jim Wilson <jim(at)wreath(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Feature bug dumpall CREATE ROLE postgres |
Date: | 2024-02-28 22:53:12 |
Message-ID: | 2572128.1709160792@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2024-02-28 We 17:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... pg_dump has never used any DO blocks in its output, and
>> I'm not sure it's a great idea to start. Seems like the kind of
>> decision we could regret down the road, given the possible need
>> for pg_restore to parse the output.
> This is only for pg_dumpall. pg_restore shouldn't care.
Yeah, fair point. I've long thought that we should get pg_dumpall
to emit something more structured than "big SQL script", but I'm
not holding my breath for that to happen.
Still, I'm a bit leery of the idea. Isn't plpgsql supposed to be
optional/droppable? I guess we could tell people who don't want it
that they can't drop it until after restoring their old data,
but still ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ocean_li_996 | 2024-02-29 02:25:37 | Re:Re: BUG #18369: logical decoding core on AssertTXNLsnOrder() |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-02-28 22:47:22 | Re: Feature bug dumpall CREATE ROLE postgres |