From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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 18:02:57 -0400
Message-ID: <20191017220257.GR6962@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191017153006.GA3599@telsasoft.com>
References: <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>
<20191017153006.GA3599@telsasoft.com>
Greetings,
* Justin Pryzby (pryzby@telsasoft.com) wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely agreed on this- deferring the pain doesn't really change
things here.
> 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.
I agree that we should call it out in the release notes, of course, and
that, in this case, it's alright to fix the '-f-' bug that exists in the
back branches as a bug and not something else.
> 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.
Ah, yes, that's true.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
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: sfrost@snowman.net, pryzby@telsasoft.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, euler@timbira.com.br, andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
In-Reply-To: <20191017220257.GR6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
* 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