Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200801311602.m0VG23C28750@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > Am Donnerstag, 31. Januar 2008 schrieb Alvaro Herrera: > >> Effect: we would stop receiving complaints that an old pg_dump can talk > >> to a server that most likely is incompatible with it. People would > >> learn on the spot that they must install the newer pg_dump. > > > I think a more moderate measure might be to clarify the error message > > "aborting because of version mismatch (Use the -i option to proceed > > anyway.)\n" > > I would be satisfied with that if I thought people would actually read > the message. My complaint is really directed at certain admin packages > (and they know who they are) that invoke pg_dump *by default*, behind > the user's back, with -i. Oh? That isn't good. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: