From: | Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Detect supported SET parameters when pg_restore is run |
Date: | 2016-09-27 22:57:44 |
Message-ID: | CAKOSWNnmAXV1j3HpX3B4M3bE5FXew9VZhoXM1wjnRcH3-7d8YQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/27/16, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/27/16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (The other thing I'd want here is a --target-version option so that
>> you could get the same output alterations in pg_dump or pg_restore to
>> text. Otherwise it's nigh undebuggable, and certainly much harder
>> to test than it needs to be.)
>
> I thought that way. I'm ready to introduce that parameter, but again,
> I see now it will influence only SET parameters. Does it worth it?
The only reason I have not implemented it was attempt to avoid users
being confused who could think that result of pg_dump (we need it
there for the plain text output) or pg_restore can be converted for
target version to be restored without new features (but now it is
wrong).
--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2016-09-27 23:23:11 | Re: LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-27 22:48:19 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random() |