From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2016-05-03 17:54:13 |
Message-ID: | 20160503175413.7tpdclw4rihn2ozv@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-03 13:47:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been thinking of proposing that it's time (not now, at this point,
> but for 9.7) to rip out libpq's support for V2 protocol as well as
> pg_dump's support for pre-7.4 backends.
+1
> There might be an argument for moving pg_dump's cutoff further than that,
> but going to 7.3 or later is significant because it would allow removal of
> the kluges for schema-less and dependency-less servers. I suggested 7.4
> because it'd comport with removal of V2 wire protocol support, and because
> 7.4 is also our cutoff for describe support in psql.
I think we can be a lot more aggressive moving the cuttoff for psql than
for pg_dump; but that's more an argument ripping out some old psql code.
> I'm hesitant to move the cutoff really far, because we do still hear from
> people running really old versions, and sooner or later those people will
> want to upgrade. It'd be good if they could use a modern pg_dump for the
> purpose.
I think we should consider making the cutoff point for pg_dump somewhat
predicatable. E.g. saying that we support 5 more versions than the
actually maintained ones. The likelihood of breakages seems to
increase a good bit for older versions.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-03 17:58:16 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-05-03 17:49:46 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |