On 2025/06/12 23:52, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:18:56AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 11:40 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 09:14:32AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
What is the purpose of the --with-data option? Dumping the data is the
default. Is this to override an earlier --no-data option?
I believe the idea is that these will allow folks to be explicit about what
they want instead of needing to understand the defaults for every
component.
Am I too late to propose ripping this out?
I mean, if I look at pg_dump --help and there are options for
--with-broccoli and --without-mushrooms, I know that the defaults are
no brocooli, yes mushrooms, and I know which options I need to specify
to get the behavior that I want, whatever that happens to be. If all
options exist in both forms, it's a lot more confusing. Maybe there's
some issue of cross-version compatibility here that justifies this
complexity, but I don't see what it would be. I would think
--with-data has always been the default and always will be, so we just
don't need --with-data for anything. But maybe I'm confused.
If the idea is to remove all options for default behavior, we'd be removing
--no-statistics, --with-data, and --with-schema at this point.
WFM.
Regarding pg_restore, since --with-statistics is already the default,
we should remove it from pg_restore.
By the way, if we keep --with-statistics in pg_dump, are we planning to
continue using the --with-xxx naming pattern for new options that
specify extra data to dump? I just wondered because pg_dump already has
other naming styles like --sequence-data, --include-foreign-data,
and --large-objects.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
