Re: v12 and pg_restore -f- - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Date
Msg-id 20191105141132.GK6962@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
List pgsql-hackers
Greetings,

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 15:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>No, I'm not proposing a full revert.  But there's certainly room to
> >>consider reverting the part that says you*must*  write "-f -" to get
> >>output to stdout.
> >I don't think this will buy us anything, if we get past branches updated
> >promptly.
>
> Users with with hundreds or thousands of servers and various ancient
> maintenance scripts lying around in hard-to-track ways are not going be able
> to get everything upgraded to the latest minors *and* new script versions
> any time soon.  Until they do, they are effectively blocked from introducing
> PG12 into their environment.  This is very complicated and risky for them.
> I think we should revert the part that requires using -f - at least for
> PG12.

Absolutely not.  This argument could be made, with a great deal more
justification, against the changes to remove recovery.conf, and I'm sure
quite a few other changes that we've made between major versions over
the years, but to do so would be to hamstring our ability to make
progress and to improve PG.

We don't guarantee this kind of compatibility between major versions.
Those users have years to address these kinds of changes, that's why we
have back-branches and support major versions for 5 years.

Thanks,

Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add%r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: The command tag of "ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW RENAME COLUMN"