SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
![Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable](http://unixadmintalk.com/iconimages/f41/re-spam-re-patches-proposed-patch-synchronized_scanning-guc-variable_ltr.gif)
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-15-2008, 10:42 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable Hi, Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écritÂ*: > 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHoeOulBXRlnbh1bkRAi9gAJ9x9Fh9k3Q02AtlcaP3sT ioF85eDwCgoClu O2AfDfk9LRd2h0DNH6IbFFs= =2YqX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----      |
|
04-15-2008, 10:42 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes: > Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écritÂ*: >> 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 |
|
04-15-2008, 10:42 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écritÂ*: > 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHofCdlBXRlnbh1bkRAsqzAJ9KMdUzLnyOMntGNw7NW7 MZHijFLACffIWP kmJ7mkGINniwKGmMfuOhaE8= =Ryjv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Linear Mode
