On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Karl O. Pinc <k...@meme.com> wrote: > Yes, the current pg_restore silently > ignores multiple --table arguments, and seems to use the last > one. You are introducing a backwards incompatible > change here. I don't know what to do about it, other > than perhaps to have the patch go into 10.0 (!?) and > introduce a patch now that complains about multiple > --table arguments. On the other hand, perhaps it's > simply undocumented what pg_restore does when > given repeated, conflicting, arguments and we're > free to change this. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't worry about this. I don't think we're obliged to be bug-compatible with our own prior releases. We've made far bigger changes for far less meritorious reasons. -- 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
