On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:22:31 -0700
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:17:30 -0000
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's fair to simply discard the use cases provided as
> > "implausible" and demand one more to your liking. I strongly dislike
> > having a giant dump file written that has non-vital configuration
> > variables embedded in the top of it, precluding any user choice
> > whatsoever[1]. As before, where are the reports of all the people
> > having their manual restorations interrupted by a statement_timeout?
>
> Calling me, wondering why in the world it is happening.
Sorry couldn't help myself. Anyway, in an attempt to be productive, I
will say that your "where are all the reports" is about as valid as,
"Where are all the users besides yourself arguing about this having to
edit a backup file?"
This is a real problem and unless we can find more people to
substantiate your claim, I think the consensus is to ensure that people
don't get bit by statement timeout when attempting to do a restore.
I vote in favor of the one less foot gun approach.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
