From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Further cleanup of pg_dump/pg_restore item selection code
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:02:59 -0500
Message-ID: <14524.1516899779@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwYp-K+ZjdGnJXTW5HqOugWiWE1UyMmgoKgMy+4mEM4OLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32668.1516848577@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAKFQuwZB=-7SL9EMjGSDAb=J13Ed8F372t6U2epYtSn=DX3DKg@mail.gmail.com>
<4858.1516853858@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAKFQuwYp-K+ZjdGnJXTW5HqOugWiWE1UyMmgoKgMy+4mEM4OLw@mail.gmail.com>
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Should pg_restore fail if asked to --create without a database entry in the
> TOC?
Yeah, I wondered about that too. This patch makes it a non-issue for
archives created with v11 or later pg_dump, but there's still a hazard
if you're restoring from an archive made by an older pg_dump. Is it
worth putting in logic to catch that?
Given the lack of field complaints, I felt fixing it going forward is
sufficient, but there's room to argue differently.
regards, tom lane
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Further cleanup of pg_dump/pg_restore item selection code
In-Reply-To: <14524.1516899779@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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