Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions
Date: 2013-04-30 13:02:20
Message-ID: 20130430130220.GJ4361@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > One of the things that we frequently recommend when doing
> > upgrades is that you do the dump with the newer version's pg_dump, so
> > as to get the benefits of any bug fixes that are in it. The more
> > dump functionality is on the server side, the less opportunity we have
> > to repair things that way.
>
> But why wouldn't we be able to fix the version in the server, if it
> turns out to be buggy? I suppose we wouldn't fix bugs discovered
> after EOL, but I'm not sure that's a sufficient objection.

There are other things beyond bugs here.. Changes in reserved keywords
is actually the biggest reason, ime, to use the newer pg_dump when
you're trying to move to a newer PG version. I don't think we'd want to
either go to quoteing everything (yuck), or having a point release
suddenly change what gets quoted and what doesn't in a pg_dump..

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-04-30 13:12:47 Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-04-30 13:00:46 Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions