| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: dumping tables data in multiple chunks in pg_dump |
| Date: | 2026-01-14 21:40:21 |
| Message-ID: | iqhlowrl7c7cmu3e35vzg65qf3rccilvpo7eeymh7pakp3xdqw@gh322zepbst6 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-01-14 11:52:54 +0100, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 3:32 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 at 09:34, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Added to https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6219/
> >
> > I see you added the "Backport" tag in the CF. This isn't the sort of
> > thing that we'd do that for. Was that a mistake?
>
> Just wanted to mark it as something that might be backported later as
> one of the important cases for pg_dump is dumping older databases .
I think it's obvious that nothing that's being discussed here has any business
being considered for backporting.
Nor can I follow the argument that dumping of old databases would be an
argument, as the proposed change is in pg_dump, not the server, so a new
pg_dump will suffice to get the benefit, no?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-01-14 21:43:39 | Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-01-14 21:33:03 | Re: AIX support |