On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> 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.
FWIW, I do too. They are useful for given application code paths. > That seems like a non-starter to me. I have used those options many > times to solve real problems, and I'm sure other people have as well. > We wouldn't have ended up with all of these options if users didn't > want to control such things. As there begins to be many switches of this kind and much code duplication, I think that some refactoring into a more generic switch infrastructure would be nicer. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
