Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > Log Message: > > ----------- > > Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option. > > The proposed TODO item was not about doing this, it was about removing > the option altogether. AFAICS it's a foot-gun and nothing else --- why > do we have it?
I thought the simple fix was to just have a better warning and see how that works in practice. There was some concern from people about removing it without more feedback/warning. I am happy to remove it. > BTW, a point I had forgotten is that pg_restore doesn't enforce that it > not be used with a newer server: > > /* XXX Should get this from the archive */ > AHX->minRemoteVersion = 070100; > AHX->maxRemoteVersion = 999999; > > I think this is probably sane, since after all we couldn't enforce that > the plain script output not be loaded into a newer server. But it means > that -i is effectively a no-op for pg_restore, which again begs the > question of why we have it. So pg_restore -i does nothing? Seems it should be removed. The plain text file will be a foot-gun too, of course. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
