Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:38:12 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	"imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com" <imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com>,
	Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>,
	Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Message-ID: <20191105143812.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20191104145336.GA23924@alvherre.pgsql>
 <5e124b1d-bd8f-0659-1088-4952464223bc@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20191105141132.GK6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <7897.1572964109@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AzG42NAufSKOGPp8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7897.1572964109@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--AzG42NAufSKOGPp8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
> the very beginning [1].  That is, first make "-f -" available, and
> make it required only in some later version.  If we'd back-patched
> the optional feature back in April, it might've been okay to require
> it in v12, but we failed to provide any transition period.

... just like we didn't provide any transistion period for the
recovery.conf changes.

> I'm in favor of making v12 act like the older branches now do, and
> requiring "-f -" only as of v13.  Yeah, the transition will be a
> little slower, but this feature is not of such huge value that it
> really justifies breaking scripts with zero notice.

The recovery.conf changes provided absolutely zero value in this
release and breaks a great deal more things.

This argument simply doesn't hold with what we've done historically or
even in this release, so, no, I don't agree that it makes sense to
revert this change any more than it makes sense to revert the
recovery.conf changes.  Maybe, if this had come up over the summer and
this agreement came out that these changes weren't worth the breakage
that they cause, we could have reverted them, but that ship has sailed
at this point.

Thanks,

Stephen

--AzG42NAufSKOGPp8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=fp4q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--AzG42NAufSKOGPp8--