On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm a bit concerned about backwards compatibility issues. It looks to >>> me like existing versions of pg_restore will flat out reject files that >>> have a spec-compliant "ustar\0" MAGIC field. Is it going to be >>> sufficient if we fix this in minor-version updates, or are we going to >>> need to have a switch that tells pg_dump to emit the incorrect old >>> format? (Ick.) > >> Do we officially support using an older pg_restore to reload a newer >> dump? I think not? As long as we don't officially support that, I >> think we'll be ok. > > Well, for the -Fc format, we have an explicit version number, and > pg_restore is supposed to be able to read anything with current or prior > version number. We don't bump the version number too often, but we've > definitely done it anytime we added new features at the file-format > level. However, since the whole point of the -Ft format is to be > standard-compliant, people might be surprised if it fell over in a > backwards-compatibility situation. > > Having said all that, I don't think we have a lot of choices here. > A "tar format" output option that isn't actually tar format has hardly > any excuse to live at all.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - it's really a bugfix... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
