Re: The missing pg_get_*def functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
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 17:55:52
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa1jR+GBWAfCD4eKURF1aK=xAgyhDaFaT2abdDyo=x5Ng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * 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.

Oh. Good point.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-04-30 18:39:42 Re: materialized view scannability in other DBs
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-04-30 17:46:55 materialized view scannability in other DBs