Re: pg_dump versus rules, once again

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus rules, once again
Date: 2016-11-17 03:06:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY5FH_EdUom98tqt=CNdmAS2AkM8zRv8Ru-T+diZZpEBQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The changes in pg_backup_archiver.c would have to be back-patched
> into all versions supporting --if-exists, so that they don't fail
> on dump archives produced by patched versions.

Even if you patch future minor releases, past minor releases are still
going to exist out there in the wild for a long, long time.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-11-17 03:09:46 Re: Unlogged tables cleanup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-11-17 03:00:49 Re: pg_dump versus rules, once again