Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?

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, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Subject: Re: Weird pg_dumpall bug?
Date: 2006-01-24 17:00:47
Message-ID: 19897.1138122047@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2006 15:44 schrieb Stephen Frost:
>> Have you got a suggestion on just how to fix it...?  Debian's
>> pg_upgradecluster bails out with an error when it discovers this
>> situation but I don't think it'd be sensible for pg_dump to do that...

> Why not?  If the backup cannot be made in a way such that the
> semantics of the restored database are the same, it shouldn't do it.

If you take a hard line on that position, then it's not necessary for
pg_dump to support cross-version operation at all, because no major
PG release is ever 100.0% compatible with the previous one.

What is actually required of pg_dump is that it produce the closest
approximation it can get to the old behavior within the context of the
new version's semantics.  I can easily cite half a dozen examples of
cases where we've applied this logic in previous versions.  I do not
see a reason to treat this case differently.  The difference between
a single role acting as both user and group and the prior behavior of
separate objects is certainly well within the "fuzz factor" that we've
allowed pg_dump to have in the past.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-24 18:23:17
Subject: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess
Previous:From: Alexey SlynkoDate: 2006-01-24 16:58:11
Subject: TODO item: locale per database patch (new iteration)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group