Re: Changing pg_dump default file format
| От | Harold Giménez |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Changing pg_dump default file format |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABQCq-RV_v0t92XQyc3iugSNWSMNZG6nX9iT7-6-BAGtL0KKQQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Changing pg_dump default file format (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Changing pg_dump default file format
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:>> I humbly request on behalf of those who manage production postgresql
>> instances that we change the default backup file format from -Fp to -Fc.> I'm a bit worried about it breaking peoples scripts as well, if theyWhether they pipe the output or not, this will break people's scripts.
> pipe the output.
I agree it's a legacy behavior that we wouldn't choose again, but you
could say that about an awful lot of things including much of the SQL
standard. I think it's too late to consider this now.
Just a thought: If it's the right thing to do, why not do it in small steps?
For example, couldn't we deprecate the behavior on 9.4, and switch over in
9.5? By deprecate I mean a warning message on STDERR making it clear
they're relying on behavior that is scheduled to change.
I don't think there's any precedence in postgres or it's tooling of this kind of
deprecation process, but it seems we need to define something like it.
Thoughts?
-H
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: