From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:30:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20191017153006.GA3599@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19891.1571307850@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20191006190839.GE18030@telsasoft.com>
<28770.1570394593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<875zl11tla.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk>
<30069.1570396524@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20191008180840.GQ6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CAHE3wgi=VU0G9=S60=gQH+yyk8-Ke99dkt8Dp4OpZXkSu=67fQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20191009124505.GT6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<OSBPR01MB4616298336E32F8EAEDA0FF394920@OSBPR01MB4616.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<20191016172148.GH6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<19891.1571307850@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:24:10PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alternatively, we could revoke the requirement to use "-f -" in 12,
> and wait a couple releases before enforcing it. The fundamental
> problem here is that we tried to go from "-f - doesn't work" to
> "you must use -f -" with no grace period where "-f - is optional".
> In hindsight that was a bad idea.
I'm going to make an argument in favour of keeping the enforcement of -f- in
v12.
If there's no enforcement, I don't know if many people would naturally start to
use -f-, which means that tools which need to work across a wide range of
(minor) versions may never confront this until it's enforced in v14/v15, at
which point we probably end up revisiting the whole thing again.
Failing pg_restore forces people to confront the new/different behavior. If we
defer failing for 2 years, it probably just means it'll be an issue again 2
years from now.
However, it's still an issue if (old) back branches (like 11.5) don't support
-f-, and I think the differing behavior should be called out in the v12 release
notes, as succinctly as possible.
Also, I'm taking the opportunity to correct myself, before someone else does:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:28:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> And vendors (something like pgadmin) will end up "having to" write to a file
> to be portable, or else check the full version, not just the major version.
I take back that part .. before v12, they'd get stdout by not specifying -f,
and since 12.0 they'd get stdout with -f-. No need to check the minor version,
since the "need to" specify -f- wouldn't be backpatched, of course.
Justin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pryzby@telsasoft.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, euler@timbira.com.br, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
In-Reply-To: <20191017153006.GA3599@telsasoft.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox