From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
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-
In-reply-to: <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>
 <20191105143812.GM6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Tue, 05 Nov 2019 09:38:12 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8585.1572965160.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 09:46:00 -0500
Message-ID: <8586.1572965160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * 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.

Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition
period.  I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one,
either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether
the benefits of the change merit forced breakage.

			regards, tom lane