On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com> wrote:
> Yes, the current pg_restore silently
> ignores multiple --table arguments, and seems to use the last
> one. You are introducing a backwards incompatible
> change here. I don't know what to do about it, other
> than perhaps to have the patch go into 10.0 (!?) and
> introduce a patch now that complains about multiple
> --table arguments. On the other hand, perhaps it's
> simply undocumented what pg_restore does when
> given repeated, conflicting, arguments and we're
> free to change this. Any thoughts?
I wouldn't worry about this. I don't think we're obliged to be
bug-compatible with our own prior releases. We've made far bigger
changes for far less meritorious reasons.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company