> On 17 Jun 2025, at 04:58, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There are enough moving parts in that area > already that I'm not eager to add more constraints to what pg_dump > needs to do.
Agreed. I we were to do anything I think a check in pg_upgrade would be more appropriate than altering pg_dump (but I'm not sure it's worth spending the cycles in every upgrade to test for this, the check phase is already quite extensive). -- Daniel Gustafsson
