On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > If nobody objects, I'll go do that. ?Hopefully that should be enough >> >> > to put this problem to bed more or less permanently. >> >> >> >> All right, I've worked up a (rather boring and tedious) patch to do >> >> this, which is attached. >> > >> > I wonder if we should bother using a flag for this. ?No one has asked >> > for one, and the new code to conditionally connect to databases should >> > function fine for most use cases. >> >> True, but OTOH we have such a flag for pg_dumpall, and I've already >> done the work. > > Well, every user-visible API option has a cost, and I am not sure there > is enough usefulness to overcome the cost of this.
I am not sure why you think this is worth the time it takes to argue about it, but if you want to whack the patch around or just forget the whole thing, go ahead. The difference between what you're proposing and what I'm proposing is about 25 lines of code, so it hardly needs an acre of justification. To me, making the tools consistent with each other and not dependent on the user's choice of database names is worth the tiny amount of code it takes to make that happen. > Also, if we are going to add this flag, we should have pg_dumpall use it > too and just depricate the old options. I thought about that, but couldn't think of a compelling reason to break backward compatibility. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
