Tom Lane wrote:
> momjian@postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > Strengthen warnings about using pg_dump's -i option.
>
> The proposed TODO item was not about doing this, it was about removing
> the option altogether. AFAICS it's a foot-gun and nothing else --- why
> do we have it?

I thought the simple fix was to just have a better warning and see how
that works in practice. There was some concern from people about
removing it without more feedback/warning. I am happy to remove it.

> BTW, a point I had forgotten is that pg_restore doesn't enforce that it
> not be used with a newer server:
>
> /* XXX Should get this from the archive */
> AHX->minRemoteVersion = 070100;
> AHX->maxRemoteVersion = 999999;
>
> I think this is probably sane, since after all we couldn't enforce that
> the plain script output not be loaded into a newer server. But it means
> that -i is effectively a no-op for pg_restore, which again begs the
> question of why we have it.

So pg_restore -i does nothing? Seems it should be removed.

The plain text file will be a foot-gun too, of course.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers