On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 08:44:42AM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > I am not a fan of backpatching any of this.
>
> Here's my problem with that. Here's setup to create what I don't
> think is all that weird a setup:
>
> The cluster is created in the state that was dumped, default read
> only flags and all.
>
> Are you saying that you find current behavior acceptable in back
> branches?
First, I don't need to see a 300-line pg_dump restore output to know it
is a bug. Second, what you didn't do is to address the rest of my
paragraph:
> I am not a fan of backpatching any of this. We have learned the fix is
> more complex than thought, and the risk of breakage and having pg_dump
> diffs change between minor releases doesn't seem justified.
We have to balance the _one_ user failure report we have received vs.
potential breakage.
Now, others seem to be fine with a backpatch, so perhaps it is safe. I
am merely pointing out that, with all backpatching, we have to balance
the fix against possible breakage and behavioral change.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
