Re: Feature bug dumpall CREATE ROLE postgres

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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