Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I am not a fan of backpatching any of this.
> Are you saying that you find current behavior acceptable in back
> branches?
I'm inclined to agree with Kevin that this behavior is wrong and
should be fixed (and back-patched), so far as pg_dumpall is concerned.
pg_dumpall's charter is to be able to recreate a database cluster's
contents in a virgin installation, but it's failing to honor that
contract if the cluster has any ALTER DATABASE SET default_read_only
settings. Similarly, I think it's reasonable to try to make pg_upgrade
cope with the case.
I also agree with *not* changing pg_dump, since it is not the charter
of pg_dump to recreate a whole cluster, and the objection about possibly
restoring into a database that was meant to be protected by this setting
seems to have some force.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
