Re: pg_dump needs an option to add the force flag to the drop database

Thanks for your asnwers, I'll create a new email for the hackers list,
it's definitely not a bug (more of an improvement imho), taking your
considerations in mind

Regards,

Joan

Missatge de Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> del dia dt., 18 de jul. 2023 a les
5:51:

> vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 14:18, Joan <aseques(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Having an option to add the FORCE option to either the generated dump
> by pg_dump, or in the pg_restore would be very useful when restoring the
> databases so it would avoid having to do scripting.
>
> > It would be better to raise this enhancement request in -hackers, as
> > it can be discussed there and taken forward accordingly from there.
>
> Yeah, this is not a bug.
>
> I'm not sure that it's a sane feature request either. pg_dump scripts are
> not designed to deal with concurrent modifications to the target database
> during restore, and I doubt that we want to invest effort in making them
> proof against such situations. Even if you only consider read-only
> concurrent accesses, what client is going to be pleased with seeing a
> half-restored database? So I don't quite follow what is the use-case
> for doing DROP DATABASE FORCE here. Realistically you need a stronger
> defense against concurrent users than that would offer.
>
> regards, tom lane
>