| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable) |
| Date: | 2008-01-31 15:28:59 |
| Message-ID: | 8023.1201793339@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
>> Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk
>> to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would
>> learn on the spot that they must install the newer pg_dump.
> I think a more moderate measure might be to clarify the error message
> "aborting because of version mismatch (Use the -i option to proceed
> anyway.)\n"
I would be satisfied with that if I thought people would actually read
the message. My complaint is really directed at certain admin packages
(and they know who they are) that invoke pg_dump *by default*, behind
the user's back, with -i.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roberts, Jon | 2008-01-31 15:34:30 | timestamp format bug |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-01-31 15:28:18 | Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-01-31 16:00:26 | Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-31 15:25:54 | Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |