Just weighing in here. On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It doesn't seem worth it > to try to support parallel restore from nearly-obsolete versions, and > I suspect that we couldn't do it even if we tried --- the reason the > representation got changed is that the old way simply didn't work for > any significant use of the dependency info. Just ignoring the > dependencies, as your patch effectively proposes, is going to lead to > restore failures or worse.
Just to clarify, the only part that would not be supported would be the parallel part, right? Best Wishes, Chris Travers -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
