Em ter, 8 de out de 2019 às 15:08, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> escreveu: > > Greetings, > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: > > > "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > > Tom> Perhaps we could change the back branches so that they interpret > > > Tom> "-f -" as "write to stdout", but without enforcing that you use > > > Tom> that syntax. > > > > > We should definitely do that. > > I agree that this would be a reasonable course of action. Really, it > should have always meant that... > Indeed, it was a broken behavior and the idea was to fix it. However, changing pg_restore in back-branches is worse than do nothing because it could break existent scripts.
> > > Tom> Alternatively, we could revert the v12 behavior change. On the > > > Tom> whole that might be the wiser course. I do not think the costs and > > > Tom> benefits of this change were all that carefully thought through. > > > > > Failing to specify -d is a _really fricking common_ mistake for > > > inexperienced users, who may not realize that the fact that they're > > > seeing a ton of SQL on their terminal is not the normal result. > > > Seriously, this comes up on a regular basis on IRC (which is why I > > > suggested initially that we should do something about it). > > > > No doubt, but that seems like a really poor excuse for breaking > > maintenance scripts in a way that basically can't be fixed. Even > > with the change suggested above, scripts couldn't rely on "-f -" > > working anytime soon, because you couldn't be sure whether a > > back-rev pg_restore had the update or not. > > Maintenance scripts break across major versions. We completely > demolished everything around how recovery works, and some idea that you > could craft up something easy that would work in a backwards-compatible > way is outright ridiculous, so I don't see why we're so concerned about > a change to how pg_restore works here. > Yeah, if you check pg_restore version, you could use new syntax for 12+. We break scripts every release (mainly with catalog changes) and I don't know why this change is different than the other ones. The pg_restore changes is more user-friendly and less error-prone. Regards, -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
