Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore
Date
Msg-id E5D20934-D1BC-44E6-AA72-B1917BC46D7A@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 28 Oct 2018, at 19:42, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:

>>> Function RestoreArchive is called both from pg_dump & pg_restore, so now
>>> the sanity check is not performed for the former (which does not have the
>>> -1 option, though). Moreover, the function is noted "Public", which may
>>> suggest that external tools could take advantage of it, and if so it
>>> suggests that maybe it is not wise to remove the test. Any opinion around?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Wouldn't ropt->single_txn be undefined when called from pg_dump ?
>
> Yes, probably.

pg_dump creates the RestoreOptions struct with NewRestoreOptions() which
allocates it with pg_malloc0(), making single_txn false.

cheers ./daniel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore
Next
From: Paul Jungwirth
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges?