Thanks for your asnwers, I'll create a new email for the hackers list, it's definitely not a bug (more of an improvement imho), taking your considerations in mind
Regards,
Joan
Missatge de Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> del dia dt., 18 de jul. 2023 a les 5:51:
vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 14:18, Joan <aseques@gmail.com> wrote: >> Having an option to add the FORCE option to either the generated dump by pg_dump, or in the pg_restore would be very useful when restoring the databases so it would avoid having to do scripting.
> It would be better to raise this enhancement request in -hackers, as > it can be discussed there and taken forward accordingly from there.
Yeah, this is not a bug.
I'm not sure that it's a sane feature request either. pg_dump scripts are not designed to deal with concurrent modifications to the target database during restore, and I doubt that we want to invest effort in making them proof against such situations. Even if you only consider read-only concurrent accesses, what client is going to be pleased with seeing a half-restored database? So I don't quite follow what is the use-case for doing DROP DATABASE FORCE here. Realistically you need a stronger defense against concurrent users than that would offer.
