On 07/25/2017 10:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-07-25 13:18:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Is this assumption, like, documented someplace?
Yes, and? We can try to address countless intentionally unsupported
edge-cases, but it's going to cost code, complexity and time. And very
likely it's going to add hard to find, test and address bugs. pg_dump is
complicated as is, I don't think trying to address every conceivable
weirdness is a good idea. There's plenty more fundamental things wrong
(e.g. DDL concurrent with a dump sometimes breaking that dump).
I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.
Isn't the simplest solution just to actually document this? Code is not
documentation except for those reading code. End users, sql developers,
DBAs etc, should never have to open doxygen.postgresql.org to figure
this stuff out.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.us
***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
