From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
Cc: | "narendramca23(at)gmail(dot)com" <narendramca23(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15308: pg_dump: server version: 10.1.5; pg_dump version: 9.6.6 pg_dump: aborting because of server version |
Date: | 2018-08-02 13:55:01 |
Message-ID: | 23670.1533218101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> writes:
> This is expected behavior: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/app-pgdump.html
>> pg_dump cannot dump from PostgreSQL servers newer than its own major version; it will refuse to even try, rather than risk making an invalid dump
Right, you need a pg_dump at least as new as the server.
> PS: also we have no 10.1.5 version. This is probably any fork, not postgresql itself?
That is indeed very strange. I thought for a moment that maybe the
pg_dump was too old to interpret our new two-part-version-number scheme
correctly. But (a) 9.6.6 is not that old, and (b) AFAICS from a quick
look at the source code, what pg_dump is printing here is just the
verbatim contents of the server_version string received from the server.
Also (c), if someone did try to use a number like 10.1.5 as a version
number, they'd confuse the heck out of a lot of PG client code that
expects major version >= 10 to have only a two-part version number.
So I too would like to know where this server came from ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-08-02 19:07:13 | Re: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack |
Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2018-08-02 13:07:12 | Re: BUG #15308: pg_dump: server version: 10.1.5; pg_dump version: 9.6.6 pg_dump: aborting because of server version |