Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Date
Msg-id E504A3AD-8A5F-4F54-A769-F0D3FF13F129@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

> On Sep 11, 2020, at 12:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:23 PM Mark Dilger
> <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Another option would be to have pg_dump take a strictness mode option.  I don't think the option should have
anythingto do with postfix operators specifically, but be more general like --dump-incompatible-objects vs.
--omit-incompatible-objectsvs. --error-on-incompatible-objects vs. --do-your-best-to-fixup-incompatible-objects, with
oneof those being the default (and with all of them having better names).  If --error-on-incompatible-objects were the
default,that would behave as Robert recommended upthread. 
>>
>> I can totally see an objection to the added complexity of such options, so I'm really just putting this out on the
listfor comment. 
>
> I'm not opposed to Tom's proposal. I just wanted to raise the issue
> for discussion.

Ah, ok.  I don't feel any need for changes, either.  I'll leave the patch as it stands now.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplified version of read_binary_file (src/backend/utils/adt/genfile.c)