2016-09-27 23:12 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> 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.  The easiest counterexample is that this very bit of
> code you want to add does so.  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.  If we're going to try altering the emitted SQL based on target
> version, let's first create a separation between those concepts; 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.)

This options likes like very good idea.



>                         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

Reply via email to