Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080205152736.GA24114@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable) (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:03AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. Right. Dave - why do we do that? ;-) //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: