From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
        Andrew <pgsqlhackers@andrewrepp.com>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobF7EwMQ0bR3ZPKdtuVa7jkixWQpm3AX6jwv6YD041EFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1376149.1675268279@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaZ8kDKiQMtDq82Qqqgc5JAfF_UEvc2qa46QwVVLvtMDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1412538.1675283692@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYoSoX8bN_yzabmRDQBNxEaWmjBKPnkZPMUDpPTBy=d4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzkjKCmVD9JDKHx09YC+c5kSL_1rHH0kRMyvDHRFoxgw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYJ+3XpW_iYapXN3gwq2MECi7GH8BxuwKFCQPOzLaa3OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=cMRoYHeoac7kscdDNBSYzHKgMvSHX5CFEoE66rimk8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1425446.1675291093@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAApHDvqJM5HxhZSnxESENAHLxTZ=eXKKHxeHfvVe1E8v28woDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1440373.1675299790@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <a7ef6212-f9fe-6826-9640-5dac54327140@dunslane.net>
 <1533086.1675349554@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1912821.1676402493@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaJJUZF41r-5NyEb2mMNXaT6Rf4FK=BWdRun0S758dXDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <369734.1677514834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobF7EwMQ0bR3ZPKdtuVa7jkixWQpm3AX6jwv6YD041EFw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:02:03 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <389891.1677520215.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:50:15 -0500
Message-ID: <389892.1677520215@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/389892.1677520215%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that's a user error not pg_dump's fault.  Particularly so for hash
>> partitioning, where there is no defensible reason to make the partitions
>> semantically different.

> I am still of the opinion that you're going down a dangerous path of
> redefining pg_dump's mission from "dump and restore the database, as
> it actually exists" to "dump and restore the database, unless the user
> did something that I think is silly".

Let's not attack straw men, shall we?  I'm defining pg_dump's mission
as "dump and restore the database successfully".  Failure to restore
does not help anyone, especially if they are in a disaster recovery
situation where it's not possible to re-take the dump.  It's not like
there's no precedent for having pg_dump tweak things to ensure a
successful restore.

			regards, tom lane