Greetings, * Euler Taveira (eu...@timbira.com.br) wrote: > Em ter, 8 de out de 2019 às 15:08, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > escreveu: > > * 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.
I can certainly respect that argument, in general, but in this specific case, I've got a really hard time believeing that people wrote scripts which use '-f -' with the expectation that a './-' file was to be created. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
