On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:39:18AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well, then we are actually using two different reasons for patching > pg_dumpall and not pg_dump. Your reason is based on the probability of > failure, while Tom/Kevin's reason is that default_transaction_read_only > might be used to block changes to a specific database, and they want a > pg_dump restore prevented, but a pg_dumpall restore to succeed.
I can't really argue one way or another because *I* am not likely to be able to offer an actual patch. At any rate all I am interested in is that pg_upgrade does not fail to upgrade in surprising ways. Regarding restoring a pg_dump IMO the line would need to be drawn along the -c/--clean option because using such seems to clearly say that, yes, the user *wants* data to be deleted. If -C/--create is used it shouldn't matter ... However, I'm not saying that this is how it is to be done. I am well aware that drawing such subtle distinctions is walking quite a fine line. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
