On 9/27/16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 9/27/16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm not exactly convinced that you did. There's only one copy of >>> Archive->remoteVersion, and you're overwriting it long before the >>> dump process is over. > >> It does not seem that I'm "overwriting it long before the dump process >> is over"... > > There's a lot that happens during RestoreArchive. Even if none of it > inspects remoteVersion today, I do not think that's a safe assumption to > make going forward.
And... Khm... Note that even _now_ AHX->remoteVersion is set to a database version pg_restore connects to... So all the code has it during restoring process... > The easiest counterexample is that this very bit of > code you want to add does so. The only change I've done is set remoteVersion to the maximum allowed when output is the plain text format. > I really do not want to get into a design > that says "remoteVersion means the source server version until we reach > RestoreArchive, and the target version afterwards". That way madness lies. It is only if you think about "remoteVersion" as "sourceServerVersion", but even now it is not so. Moreover RestoreArchive is a delimter only for pg_dump and only when output is a plain text. For other modes of the pg_dump RestoreArchive is not called at all. > If we're going to try altering the emitted SQL based on target version, > let's first create a separation between those concepts; I've just found there is _archiveHandle.archiveRemoteVersion. Is it a parameter you were searched for? The pg_restore code does not use it (just as remoteVersion), but it can do so if it is necessary. > otherwise I will bet that we add more bugs than we remove. > > (The other thing I'd want here is a --target-version option so that > you could get the same output alterations in pg_dump or pg_restore to > text. Otherwise it's nigh undebuggable, and certainly much harder > to test than it needs to be.) I thought that way. I'm ready to introduce that parameter, but again, I see now it will influence only SET parameters. Does it worth it? -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers