On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 08:44:42AM -0800, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > I am not a fan of backpatching any of this. > > Here's my problem with that. Here's setup to create what I don't > think is all that weird a setup: > > The cluster is created in the state that was dumped, default read > only flags and all. > > Are you saying that you find current behavior acceptable in back > branches?
First, I don't need to see a 300-line pg_dump restore output to know it is a bug. Second, what you didn't do is to address the rest of my paragraph: > I am not a fan of backpatching any of this. We have learned the fix is > more complex than thought, and the risk of breakage and having pg_dump > diffs change between minor releases doesn't seem justified. We have to balance the _one_ user failure report we have received vs. potential breakage. Now, others seem to be fine with a backpatch, so perhaps it is safe. I am merely pointing out that, with all backpatching, we have to balance the fix against possible breakage and behavioral change. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers