On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:22:31 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:17:30 -0000 > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think it's fair to simply discard the use cases provided as > > "implausible" and demand one more to your liking. I strongly dislike > > having a giant dump file written that has non-vital configuration > > variables embedded in the top of it, precluding any user choice > > whatsoever[1]. As before, where are the reports of all the people > > having their manual restorations interrupted by a statement_timeout? > > Calling me, wondering why in the world it is happening. Sorry couldn't help myself. Anyway, in an attempt to be productive, I will say that your "where are all the reports" is about as valid as, "Where are all the users besides yourself arguing about this having to edit a backup file?" This is a real problem and unless we can find more people to substantiate your claim, I think the consensus is to ensure that people don't get bit by statement timeout when attempting to do a restore. I vote in favor of the one less foot gun approach. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
