On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:11:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 4/12/17 18:31, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On 4/11/17 23:41, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:21:24PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>>> On 4/9/17 22:16, Noah Misch wrote:
> >>>>> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Patches have been posted. Discussion is still going on a bit.
> >>>
> >>> By what day should the community look for your next update?
> >>
> >> tomorrow
> >
> > Everything has been committed, and this thread can be closed.
>
> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they
> are dumped by default, just like we have --no-blobs, --no-owner,
> --no-password, --no-privileges, --no-acl, --no-tablespaces, and
> --no-security-labels. It seems like there is probably a fairly large
> use case for excluding subscriptions even if you have sufficient
> permissions to dump them.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
