Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Well, that's a user error not pg_dump's fault. Particularly so for hash >> partitioning, where there is no defensible reason to make the partitions >> semantically different.
> I am still of the opinion that you're going down a dangerous path of > redefining pg_dump's mission from "dump and restore the database, as > it actually exists" to "dump and restore the database, unless the user > did something that I think is silly". Let's not attack straw men, shall we? I'm defining pg_dump's mission as "dump and restore the database successfully". Failure to restore does not help anyone, especially if they are in a disaster recovery situation where it's not possible to re-take the dump. It's not like there's no precedent for having pg_dump tweak things to ensure a successful restore. regards, tom lane