| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: binary array and record recv |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 15:23:08 |
| Message-ID: | 14808.1233069788@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007 18:30:22 Tom Lane wrote:
>> Arguably, pg_dump from an older version should make sure that the auto
>> rules should NOT get created, else it is failing to preserve an older
>> view's behavior.
> We extend properties of objects all the time. That is why we make new
> releases. No one is required to use the new properties.
> Should pg_dump also make sure that tables imported from an older version are
> not usable for recursive unions or window functions, thus preserving the
> older table's behavior?
That argument seems fairly bogus. The addition of those features won't
change the behavior of existing applications.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Harald Armin Massa | 2009-01-27 15:23:18 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-27 15:22:34 | Re: Index Scan cost expression |