Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Fabien COELHO
Тема Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore
Дата
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.21.1810280735310.3739@lancre
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Conflicting option checking in pg_restore  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Ответы Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore
Re: Conflicting option checking in pg_restore
Список pgsql-hackers
Hallå Daniel,

> Checking for conflicting options in pg_restore was mostly done in main() with
> one check deferred until RestoreArchive().  Reading the git history makes it
> seem like it simply happened, without the disjoint checking being intentional.
> Am I reading it right that we can consolidate all the option checking to
> main()?  The attached patch does that, and also rewords the error message to
> make it similar to the other option checks.

Patch applies cleanly, compiles, both global and local "make check" ok.

As there are no test changes, this is not tested. I'd suggest to add it to 
"src/bin/pg_dump/t/001_basic.pl".

There is a possible catch:

Function RestoreArchive is called both from pg_dump & pg_restore, so now 
the sanity check is not performed for the former (which does not have the 
-1 option, though). Moreover, the function is noted "Public", which may 
suggest that external tools could take advantage of it, and if so it 
suggests that maybe it is not wise to remove the test. Any opinion around?

Maybe the check could be kept in RestoreArchive with a comment to say it 
is redundant, but the check could be performed in pg_restore as well for 
the sake of having an better and more homogeneous error message.

-- 
Fabien.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [RFC] Removing "magic" oids
Следующее
От: Dilip Kumar
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: CVE-2017-7484-induced bugs, or, btree cmp functions are not leakproof?