Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > -- Start of PGP signed section. >> Hi, >> >> Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?: >> > We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server >> > version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard >> > error, rather than something people could override with -i. >> >> Are you thinking about next major or minor version ? All the same? >> Is there some real good reason not to dump say 8.2.6 server with the pg_dump >> from an 8.2.5 installation? > > They are talking about cross-major dumps, 8.2 pg_dump dumping an 8.3 > database. They are saying that should be disallowed. And just to be clearly *only* cross-major dumps with an *older* pg_dump than the database. Dumping with a newer pg_dump than the database is the recommended way to do cross-major dumps. Perhaps we can have something like --force-unsupported-incompatible-connections 1/2 :) -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : > I'm thinking next major. In principle there could be cases where a > minor update could break pg_dump, but it seems unlikely enough that > it's not reasonable to embed such a policy in the code. As for > next major, though, the mere existence of the -i switch is a foot-gun > with no significant value. +2 then :) 1. Current behavior is to issue the « -i warning » even when having minor version mismatch, getting rid of this would be great... even more so now we know there's almost no risk here. 2. Major version mismatch seems to be one of the major migration pitfalls out there. The famous "You have to dump with the newer pg_dump version against the current production setup" cookbook entry will certainly be better embedded into the code. Regards, -- dim signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : >> We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server >> version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard >> error, rather than something people could override with -i. > Are you thinking about next major or minor version ? All the same? > Is there some real good reason not to dump say 8.2.6 server with the pg_dump > from an 8.2.5 installation? I'm thinking next major. In principle there could be cases where a minor update could break pg_dump, but it seems unlikely enough that it's not reasonable to embed such a policy in the code. As for next major, though, the mere existence of the -i switch is a foot-gun with no significant value. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Dimitri Fontaine wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > Hi, > > Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?: > > We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server > > version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard > > error, rather than something people could override with -i. > > Are you thinking about next major or minor version ? All the same? > Is there some real good reason not to dump say 8.2.6 server with the pg_dump > from an 8.2.5 installation? They are talking about cross-major dumps, 8.2 pg_dump dumping an 8.3 database. They are saying that should be disallowed. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: {**Spam**} Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Hi, Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit : > We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server > version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard > error, rather than something people could override with -i. Are you thinking about next major or minor version ? All the same? Is there some real good reason not to dump say 8.2.6 server with the pg_dump from an 8.2.5 installation? -- dim signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
