Re: One less footgun: removing pg_dump -d - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: One less footgun: removing pg_dump -d
Date
Msg-id 49B57655.1020901@hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: One less footgun: removing pg_dump -d  (Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@endpoint.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>>>   -i, --ignore-version     proceed even when server version mismatches
>>>                            pg_dump version
>> Proposal: drop the short forms of these two switches entirely.
>> Anybody who actually needs the capability can write "--inserts".
> 
> I thought about something like that, but that would break even more existing
> scripts than the current patch, no? I'd be all for not using -I though, as that
> would not break anything.
> 
> Sorry about the "deprecation" name, I withdraw that part
> 
> Magnus: Sorry about non-mergeability, I wrote this while offline...

No, the problem is not that I get merge failures. It's that *your* merge
conflicts are included in the patch itself.

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Sabino Mullane
Date:
Subject: Re: One less footgun: removing pg_dump -d
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704)