Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:07 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I think this teapot doesn't need the tempest, and nobody's drowning in
>> it anyway.
> Yeah, I think we're getting awfully worked up over not much.
Seems like that's getting to be the consensus opinion. Let's lea
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:07 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think this teapot doesn't need the tempest, and nobody's drowning in
> it anyway.
Yeah, I think we're getting awfully worked up over not much. If I had
been reviewing this feature initially, I believe I would have voted
for making -f- go t
On 2019-Nov-05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sure, because there wasn't any practical way to provide a transition
> period. I think that case is entirely not comparable to this one,
> either as to whether a transition period is possible, or as to whether
> the benefits of the change merit forced breakage.
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
> >> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
> >> the very beginning [1]. That
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
>> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
>> the very beginning [1]. That is, first make "-f -" available, and
>> make it required onl
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In this case, not in the least: we would simply be imposing the sort
> of *orderly* feature introduction that I thought was the plan from
> the very beginning [1]. That is, first make "-f -" available, and
> make it required only in some later v
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-11-05 15:11, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >We don't guarantee this kind of compatibility between major versions.
>
> We do generally ensure compatibility of client side tools across major
> versions. I don't recall a cas
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 2019-11-04 15:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
No, I'm not proposing a full revert. But there's certainly room to
consider reverting the part that says you*must* write "-f -" to get
output to stdou
On 2019-11-05 15:11, Stephen Frost wrote:
We don't guarantee this kind of compatibility between major versions.
We do generally ensure compatibility of client side tools across major
versions. I don't recall a case where we broke compatibility in a
comparable way without a generous transitio
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 15:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>No, I'm not proposing a full revert. But there's certainly room to
> >>consider reverting the part that says you*must* write "-f -" to get
> >>output to stdout.
> >I don't thi
On 2019-11-04 15:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
No, I'm not proposing a full revert. But there's certainly room to
consider reverting the part that says you*must* write "-f -" to get
output to stdout.
I don't think this will buy us anything, if we get past branches updated
promptly.
Users with wi
On 2019-Nov-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Nov-04, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > > Alvaro Herrera writes:
>
> > > > +1 for this, FWIW. Let's get it done before next week minors. Is
> > > > anybody writing a patch? If not, I can do it.
>
> Turns out that this is a simple partial cherry-pic
On 2019-Nov-04, Euler Taveira wrote:
> Em seg., 4 de nov. de 2019 às 16:12, Alvaro Herrera
> escreveu:
> > I'm not sure if we need to call out the incompatibility in the minors'
> > release notes (namely, that people using "-f-" to dump to ./- will need
> > to choose a different file name).
> >
>
On 2019-Nov-04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Turns out that this is a simple partial cherry-pick of the original
> > commit.
>
> In the back branches, you should keep the statement that stdout
> is the default output file. Looks sane otherwise (I didn't test it).
I propose this
Em seg., 4 de nov. de 2019 às 16:12, Alvaro Herrera
escreveu:
> I'm not sure if we need to call out the incompatibility in the minors'
> release notes (namely, that people using "-f-" to dump to ./- will need
> to choose a different file name).
>
Should we break translations? I'm -0.5 on changing
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Turns out that this is a simple partial cherry-pick of the original
> commit.
In the back branches, you should keep the statement that stdout
is the default output file. Looks sane otherwise (I didn't test it).
> I'm not sure if we need to call out the incompatibility i
On 2019-Nov-04, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > +1 for this, FWIW. Let's get it done before next week minors. Is
> > > anybody writing a patch? If not, I can do it.
Turns out that this is a simple partial cherry-pick of the original
commit.
I'm not sure if we need to c
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Oct-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Stephen Frost writes:
> >>> Tom, I take it your suggestion is to have '-f -' be accepted to mean
> >>> 'goes to stdout' in all branches?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > +1 for this, FWIW. Let
Em seg., 4 de nov. de 2019 às 11:53, Alvaro Herrera
escreveu:
>
> On 2019-Oct-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > First, I'd like to clarify what I believe Tom's suggestion is, and then
> > > talk through that, as his vote sways this topic pretty heavily.
> >
> > > Tom, I take i
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Oct-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stephen Frost writes:
>>> Tom, I take it your suggestion is to have '-f -' be accepted to mean
>>> 'goes to stdout' in all branches?
>> Yes.
> +1 for this, FWIW. Let's get it done before next week minors. Is
> anybody writing a patch
On 2019-Oct-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > First, I'd like to clarify what I believe Tom's suggestion is, and then
> > talk through that, as his vote sways this topic pretty heavily.
>
> > Tom, I take it your suggestion is to have '-f -' be accepted to mean
> > 'goes to stdout'
Greetings,
* Justin Pryzby (pry...@telsasoft.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:24:10PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alternatively, we could revoke the requirement to use "-f -" in 12,
> > and wait a couple releases before enforcing it. The fundamental
> > problem here is that we tried to go
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:24:10PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alternatively, we could revoke the requirement to use "-f -" in 12,
> and wait a couple releases before enforcing it. The fundamental
> problem here is that we tried to go from "-f - doesn't work" to
> "you must use -f -" with no grace pe
Stephen Frost writes:
> First, I'd like to clarify what I believe Tom's suggestion is, and then
> talk through that, as his vote sways this topic pretty heavily.
> Tom, I take it your suggestion is to have '-f -' be accepted to mean
> 'goes to stdout' in all branches?
Yes.
> That goes against t
Greetings,
* Justin Pryzby (pry...@telsasoft.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:21:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > [...] if they actually need to work with both concurrently (which
> > > > strikes me
> > > > as
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:04:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:21:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > [...] if they actually need to work with both concurrently (which strikes
> > > me
> > > as already at least relatively uncommon...).
> >
> > I doubt it's uncom
Greetings,
* Justin Pryzby (pry...@telsasoft.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 04:43:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nobody is going to wish that to mean "write to a file named '-'", so
>
> Probably right, but it occurs to me that someone could make a named pipe
> called
> that, possibly to
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 04:43:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nobody is going to wish that to mean "write to a file named '-'", so
Probably right, but it occurs to me that someone could make a named pipe called
that, possibly to make "dump to stdout" work with scripts that don't support
dumping to s
Greetings,
* imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com (imai.yoshik...@fujitsu.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:09 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I saw this and updated our scripts with pg_restore -f-
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12.html
> > |In pg_restore, require specification of -f - to
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:09 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I saw this and updated our scripts with pg_restore -f-
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12.html
> |In pg_restore, require specification of -f - to send the dump contents to
> standard output (Euler Taveira)
> |Previously, this
Greetings,
* Euler Taveira (eu...@timbira.com.br) wrote:
> Em ter, 8 de out de 2019 às 15:08, Stephen Frost
> escreveu:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > Andrew Gierth writes:
> > > > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> > > > Tom> Perhaps we could change the back branches so that they
Em ter, 8 de out de 2019 às 15:08, Stephen Frost escreveu:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Andrew Gierth writes:
> > > "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> > > Tom> Perhaps we could change the back branches so that they interpret
> > > Tom> "-f -" as "write to stdout", but
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
> > "Tom" == Tom Lane 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 def
BTW, the prior discussion is here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/24868.1550106683%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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.
> Tom> Alternatively, we could revert the v12
> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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.
Tom> Alternatively, we could revert the v12 behavior change. On the
Tom
[ redirecting to -hackers ]
Justin Pryzby writes:
> I saw this and updated our scripts with pg_restore -f-
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12.html
> |In pg_restore, require specification of -f - to send the dump contents to
> standard output (Euler Taveira)
> |Previously, this happ
37 matches
Mail list logo
