Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option.
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200803261846.m2QIkUN22753@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> My proposal would be to continue to accept the option but just ignore it > >> (ie, error out on version mismatch whether or not -i is given). This > >> way we wouldn't break any scripts that use the option, but things would > >> still be safe. > > > A larger question is why the option was added in the first place. > > It probably seemed like the conservative choice at the time: allow the > user to be smarter than pg_dump when necessary. What we couldn't have > foreseen was the way the option has been abused by tools that are not as > bright as they think they are. With the current situation where -i is > used by default, without the user's knowledge (and without showing him > the warning messages, which is why your patch isn't going to improve > matters), it just seems too dangerous to continue to accept the switch. > > (I wonder whether some of the complaints we've seen about broken > dump/restore are courtesy of pgAdmin forcing the dump to be taken with > a too-old copy of pg_dump.) Agreed, but I thought the tools have been fixed so is this still a problem? > One point after looking back at the previous discussion is that the > current version test is too strict: it will complain if your server is > 8.2.7 and pg_dump is 8.2.6. We probably should not make a newer minor > number a hard error, since 99.99% of the time it would be fine. So > while I think newer major should be a hard error regardless of -i, > we could consider several responses to newer minor: > * silently allow it always > * print warning and proceed always > * allow -i to control error vs warning for this case only. I think it should be silent. Do we ever change the server behavior that is visible to pg_dump in a minor release? -- 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: