Thread: add --sequence-data to pg_dumpall
I noticed that I forgot to add --sequence-data to pg_dumpall in commit 9c49f0e, which added the same option to pg_dump. This option is primarily intended for use by pg_upgrade, so we will need it if/when we teach pg_upgrade to use pg_dumpall to dump the databases. (Right now pg_upgrade directly calls pg_dump on each database.) Assuming we want this patch, should we apply it to v18? It's arguably an oversight in the pg_dump --sequence-data commit, and pg_dumpall will just pass the option through to pg_dump, but otherwise there's not a really strong reason it can't wait. -- nathan
Attachment
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:55:08PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > I noticed that I forgot to add --sequence-data to pg_dumpall in commit > 9c49f0e, which added the same option to pg_dump. This option is primarily > intended for use by pg_upgrade, so we will need it if/when we teach > pg_upgrade to use pg_dumpall to dump the databases. (Right now pg_upgrade > directly calls pg_dump on each database.) > > Assuming we want this patch, should we apply it to v18? It's arguably an > oversight in the pg_dump --sequence-data commit, and pg_dumpall will just > pass the option through to pg_dump, but otherwise there's not a really > strong reason it can't wait. This reminds me of, that fixed a similar defect in pg_dumpall following the addition of an option in pg_dump where the former was forgotten: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YKHC%2BqCJvzCRVCpY%40paquier.xyz I agree with applying that to v18 now and treat it as a defect rather than wait for v19 and treat this patch as a new feature. Bonus points for the patch being straight-forward. -- Michael
Attachment
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 09:29:59AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:55:08PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Assuming we want this patch, should we apply it to v18? It's arguably an >> oversight in the pg_dump --sequence-data commit, and pg_dumpall will just >> pass the option through to pg_dump, but otherwise there's not a really >> strong reason it can't wait. > > This reminds me of, that fixed a similar defect in pg_dumpall > following the addition of an option in pg_dump where the former was > forgotten: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YKHC%2BqCJvzCRVCpY%40paquier.xyz > > I agree with applying that to v18 now and treat it as a defect rather > than wait for v19 and treat this patch as a new feature. Bonus points > for the patch being straight-forward. Since there's precedent, I'll plan on committing this in the next few days unless someone objects. I've added the rest of the RMT to this thread, too, just in case. -- nathan
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 02:52:27PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > Since there's precedent, I'll plan on committing this in the next few days > unless someone objects. I've added the rest of the RMT to this thread, > too, just in case. I brought this up in the RMT meeting today, and everyone was fine with committing it for v18. I'll plan on doing so later this week. -- nathan