Greetings,
* Euler Taveira (euler@timbira.com.br) wrote:
> Em ter, 8 de out de 2019 às 15:08, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> escreveu:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> > > > "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > > > Tom> Perhaps we could change the back branches so that they interpret
> > > > Tom> "-f -" as "write to stdout", but without enforcing that you use
> > > > Tom> that syntax.
> > >
> > > > We should definitely do that.
> >
> > I agree that this would be a reasonable course of action. Really, it
> > should have always meant that...
> >
> Indeed, it was a broken behavior and the idea was to fix it. However,
> changing pg_restore in back-branches is worse than do nothing because
> it could break existent scripts.
I can certainly respect that argument, in general, but in this specific
case, I've got a really hard time believeing that people wrote scripts
which use '-f -' with the expectation that a './-' file was to be
created.
Thanks,
Stephen
