On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:05:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:55 PM, David G. Johnston
> > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Having --no-comments seems generally useful to me, in any case.
>
> >> It smacks of being excessive to me.
>
> > It sounds perfectly sensible to me. It's not exactly an elegant
> > solution to the original problem, but it's a reasonable switch on
> > its own merits.
>
> I dunno. What's the actual use-case, other than as a bad workaround
> to a problem we should fix a different way?
The one I run into frequently is in a proprietary fork, RDS Postgres.
It'll happily dump out COMMENT ON EXTENSION plpgsq IS ...
which is great as far as it goes, but errors out when you try to
reload it.
While bending over backwards to support proprietary forks strikes me
as a terrible idea, I'd like to enable pg_dump to produce and consume
ToCs just as pg_restore does with its -l/-L options. This would
provide the finest possible grain.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
