Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:20, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> > Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> >> > If nobody objects, I'll go do that. ?Hopefully that should be > >> >> >> > enough > >> >> >> > to put this problem to bed more or less permanently. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> All right, I've worked up a (rather boring and tedious) patch to do > >> >> >> this, which is attached. > >> >> > > >> >> > I wonder if we should bother using a flag for this. ?No one has asked > >> >> > for one, and the new code to conditionally connect to databases should > >> >> > function fine for most use cases. > >> >> > >> >> True, but OTOH we have such a flag for pg_dumpall, and I've already > >> >> done the work. > >> > > >> > Well, every user-visible API option has a cost, and I am not sure there > >> > is enough usefulness to overcome the cost of this. > >> > >> I am not sure why you think this is worth the time it takes to argue > >> about it, but if you want to whack the patch around or just forget the > >> whole thing, go ahead. ?The difference between what you're proposing > >> and what I'm proposing is about 25 lines of code, so it hardly needs > >> an acre of justification. ?To me, making the tools consistent with > >> each other and not dependent on the user's choice of database names is > >> worth the tiny amount of code it takes to make that happen. > > > > Well, it would be good to get other opinions on this. ?The amount of > > code isn't really the issue for me, but rather keeping the user API as > > clean as possible. > > Seems reasonably clean to me. Not sure what would be unclean about it? > Are you saying we need to explain the concept of maintenance db > somewhere in the docs? > > >> > Also, if we are going to add this flag, we should have pg_dumpall use it > >> > too and just deprecate the old options. > >> > >> I thought about that, but couldn't think of a compelling reason to > >> break backward compatibility. > > Adding it to pg_dumpal lwithout removing the old one doesn't cause > backwards compatibility break. Then mark the old one as deprecated, > and remove it a few releases down the road. We can't keep every switch > around forever ;)
OK, good. I will work on this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
