On Tue, 2025-03-25 at 10:53 -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
> So this patch swings the pendulum a bit back towards accepting some
> things as errors.
Not exactly. I see patch 0001 as a change to the function signatures
from regclass to schemaname/relname, both for usability as well as
control over ERROR vs WARNING.
There's agreement to do so, so I went ahead and committed that part.
> the best we can do is to draw the error-versus-warning line at a
> place that:
>
> * doesn't mess up flawed restores that we would otherwise expect to
> complete at least partially
> * is easy for us to understand
> * is easy for us to explain
> * we can live with for the next couple of decades
The original reason we wanted to issue warnings was to allow ourselves
a chance to change the meaning of parameters, add new parameters, or
even remove parameters without causing restore failures. If there are
any ERRORs that might limit our flexibility I think we should downgrade
those to WARNINGs.
Also, out of a sense of paranoia, it might be good to downgrade some
other ERRORs to WARNINGs, like in 0002. I don't think it's quite as
important as you seem to think, however. It doesn't make a lot of
difference unless the user is running restore with --single-transaction
or --exit-on-error, in which case they probably don't want the restore
to continue if something unexpected happens. I'm fine having the
discussion, though, or we can wait until beta to see what kinds of
problems people encounter.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
