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

Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server

From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server
Date: 2009-09-28 16:55:32
Message-ID: 87fxa79fgb.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
> On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 16:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "shakahshakah(at)gmail(dot)com" <shakahshakah(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > From pg_dump/pg_restore section (9.2 of the Todo page on the
>> > PostgreSQL Wiki), is the following item
>> >   "Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the
>> > database server"
>> > simply asking for a change to the pg_dump header from:
>> 
>> I think so, but what's not clear is whether this is a good idea to do
>> in the default output.  It might only be appropriate in "verbose" mode,
>> so as not to introduce unnecessary diffs between logically identical
>> dumps.
>
> Well, a diff of the same database made by different (major) versions of
> pg_dump will already be different in most situations, so adding the
> pg_dump version number in it is essentially free from this perspective.
>
> What is the use case for adding the server version?
>
> I can imagine something like wanting to know exactly where the dump came
> from, but then host name and such would be better.  (And then you can
> infer the server version from that.)

I added this ToDo because we had a case where we were spelunking
through some old pg_dumps, and the provenance was sufficiently distant
that we couldn't readily infer what PostgreSQL version was involved.

If pg_dump reported something like:

-- pg_dump version: 8.5_devel
-- postgres server version: 8.4.17

then it would be trivial to ascertain the information.

Actually, I have no argument with your point; perhaps a whole "header
section" is the right answer:

-- pg_dump version: 8.5_devel
-- postgres server version: 8.4.17
-- dump began at: 2010-07-01 14:22:27 EDT
-- server name: wolfe
-- more, maybe?


>> Another issue is that it's not all that clear what to do or how to do it
>> for archive dumps --- do you then want both pg_dump and pg_restore to
>> tell you about themselves?
>
> I don't see a good reason for pg_restore to get involved.

Agreed.  This isn't needed for pg_restore to do anything better; it's
so that humans can do better "archaeology."
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/languages.html
Rules of the  Evil Overlord #187. "I will not  hold lavish banquets in
the middle of  a famine. The good PR among the  guests doesn't make up
for the bad PR among the masses."  <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-09-28 16:56:10
Subject: Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch
Previous:From: Dan ColishDate: 2009-09-28 16:43:49
Subject: ECPG patch views [moved from RRR list]

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