On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 14:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > It looks like I broke this in commit
> > 4317e0246c645f60c39e6572644cff1cb03b4c65, because I removed this from
> > _tocEntryRequired():
>
> > - /* Ignore DATABASE entry unless we should create it */
> > - if (!ropt->createDB &&
I wrote:
> It looks like I broke this in commit
> 4317e0246c645f60c39e6572644cff1cb03b4c65, because I removed this from
> _tocEntryRequired():
> - /* Ignore DATABASE entry unless we should create it */
> - if (!ropt->createDB && strcmp(te->desc, "DATABASE") == 0)
> - return 0;
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Hm, but the bug is said to happen only in 9.2, so if we don't backpatch
>> we would leave 9.2 alone exhibiting this behavior.
> Oh, yeah. I missed that. But then shouldn't we start by identifying
> which commit
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>> > Any comments on this?
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd want to back-patch this, since it is a behavior
>> change, but I do think it's probably a good idea to
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 12:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
> > wrote:
> > > Any comments on this?
> >
> > I'm not sure I'd want to back-patch this, since it is a behavior
> > change, but I do think it's probably a good
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
> > Any comments on this?
>
> I'm not sure I'd want to back-patch this, since it is a behavior
> change, but I do think it's probably a good idea to change it for 9.3.
Hm, but the bug is said to happen only in 9
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> Any comments on this?
I'm not sure I'd want to back-patch this, since it is a behavior
change, but I do think it's probably a good idea to change it for 9.3.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Post
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 16:47 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of my colleagues, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais, found a weird
> behaviour of the "-c" command line option in the pg_restore tool while
> doing a training. Here is the following steps he followed:
>
> createdb foo
>
> pg_dum
Hi,
One of my colleagues, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais, found a weird
behaviour of the "-c" command line option in the pg_restore tool while
doing a training. Here is the following steps he followed:
createdb foo
pg_dump -Fc foo > foo.dump
createdb bar
pg_restore -c -d bar foo.dump
bar contains
