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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa2qob=5qL3AOLL=L++1CRXZc7NUfvHC1dh7OAsN1CpQw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:07 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think this teapot doesn't need the tempest, and nobody's drowning in
> it anyway.

Yeah, I think we're getting awfully worked up over not much. If I had
been reviewing this feature initially, I believe I would have voted
for making -f- go to stdout first, and requiring it only in a later
release. But what's done is done. I don't see this as being such an
emergency as to justify whacking around the back-branches or reverting
already-release features. We could easily cause more damage by jerking
the behavior around than was caused by the original decision.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
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: v12 and pg_restore -f-