Tom Lane wrote:
[snip]
Probably the only way we can make this design work is to bump the
archive version number so that older pg_restores will fail. (Whereupon
there is no need to rename the entry type BTW.) This is slightly
annoying but it's not like we've not done it multiple times before.
If we wanted to keep backwards compatibility, we'd have to leave
the lo_create responsibility with the BLOBS item, and have the
BLOB metadata items be things that just add ACLs/ownership/comments
without doing the actual create, and have to be processed after
BLOBS instead of before it. This is probably workable but it
doesn't seem to me that it's accomplishing the goal of making blobs
work like normal objects.
So, any objections to bumping the version number?
When I read the snipped part of this email my immediate thought was "Why
aren't we bumping the archive version number?"
So +1 for this course of action.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
