On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 20 July 2015 at 01:18, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:08:53AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2015-07-15 12:04:40 +0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> > Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > > One thing worth mentioning is that arguably the problem is caused by the
>>> > > fact that we're here emitting database level information in pg_dump,
>>> > > normally only done for dumpall.
>>
>> Consistency with existing practice would indeed have pg_dump ignore
>> pg_shseclabel and have pg_dumpall reproduce its entries.
>
> Existing practice is pretty broken though, and not necessarily a good guide.
>
> COMMENT ON DATABASE and SECURITY LABEL FOR DATABASE are dumped by
> pg_dump, but always refer to the database's name at the time it was
> dumped, so restoring it can break.
>
> GRANTs on databases are ignored and not dumped by pg_dump or by
> pg_dumpall --globals-only. The only way to dump them seems to be to
> use pg_dumpall, which nobody uses in the real world.
>
> I'd be strongly in favour of teaching GRANT, SECURITY LABEL, COMMENT
> ON DATABASE, etc to recognise CURRENT_DATABASE as a keyword. Then
> dumping them in pg_dump --create, and in pg_dump -Fc .
>
> In practice I see zero real use of pg_dumpall without --globals-only,
> and almost everyone does pg_dump -Fc . I'd like to see that method
> case actually preserve the whole state of the system and do the right
> thing sensibly.
>
> A pg_restore option to skip database-level settings could be useful,
> but I think by default they should be restored.
Yes, I think we should make restoring the database's properties the
job of pg_dump and remove it completely from pg_dumpall, unless we can
find a case where that's really going to break things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company