Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > On 03/15/2012 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 08:22:24AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> I think this could be budgeted under keeping pg_dump backward >>> compatible. You have to do that anyway for each catalog change, and so >>> doing something extra for a pg_statistic change should be too shocking.
>> Well, the big question is whether the community wants to buy into that >> workload. It isn't going to be possible for me to adjust the statistics >> dump/restore code based on the changes someone makes unless I can fully >> understand the changes by looking at the patch. > You're not the only person who could do that. I don't think this is all > down to you. It should just be understood that if the stats format is > changed, adjusting pg_upgrade needs to be part of the change. When we > modified how enums worked, we adjusted pg_upgrade at the same time. That > sort of thing seems totally reasonable to me. Considering that no pg_dump infrastructure for this exists, much less has ever been modified to accommodate a cross-version change, it seems a bit presumptuous to just say "yes we're all buying into that". If someone were to create that infrastructure, complete with the ability to support the already-committed 9.1 to 9.2 changes, then we would have a basis for discussing such a requirement. But until then it's moot. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers