On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:59:00PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Pascal Meunier wrote:
> >Thanks for answering; I appreciate it, as well as the efforts of all the
> >people who contributed to this database that I now use in my projects.
> >
> >However, I feel that making a decision based on the number of prior and
> >possible future complaints is a poor excuse to not do the right thing. A
> >low number of prior complaints simply suggests lax security audits of
> >default behaviors.
> >
>
>
> At the very least we would need a way of getting the current behaviour,
> if we are not to break existing applications.
>
> People have a reasonable expectation that a dump and reload will work,
> and that can't be dismissed as cavalierly as this.
>
> Maybe a config file option would do the trick, or maybe an option to
> pg_dump / pg_dumpall to make it generate the extra GRANT statement that
> would be required.
This pg_dump issue keeps biting us in the rear... I think at the very
least we should have a means for a dump file to tell the backend that
it's about to process a dump file generated by version XYZ. That at
least gives us the ability to handle prior version incompatibilites.
--
Jim Nasby jimn@enterprisedb.com
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
