On 1 September 2017 at 22:08, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Thinking ahead, are we going to add a new --no-objecttype switch every >>> time someone wants it? >> >> I'd personally be fine with --no-whatever for any whatever that might >> be a subsidiary property of database objects. We've got >> --no-security-labels, --no-tablespaces, --no-owner, and >> --no-privileges already, so what's wrong with --no-comments? >> >> (We've also got --no-publications; I think it's arguable whether that >> is the same kind of thing.) > > And --no-subscriptions in the same bucket.
Yes, it is. I was suggesting that we remove those as well. But back to the main point which is that --no-comments discards ALL comments simply to exclude one pointless and annoying comment. That runs counter to our stance that we do not allow silent data loss. I want to solve the problem too. I accept that not everyone uses comments, but if they do, spilling them all on the floor is a user visible slip up that we should not be encouraging. Sorry y'all. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
