Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning

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