From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/src/bin/pg_dump pg_backup_archiver.c |
Date: | 2003-01-10 21:57:14 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJKEPFKEAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> That's one reason that I didn't like solving it by hacking pg_dump.
>
> > My fix works well with the scenario 7.2 pg_restore -> 7.3 pg_restore.
> > It's another problem that 7.3 pg_dump -> 7.3 pg_restore fails.
>
> Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes. Exactly what was the failure
> that your fix was intended to prevent? I thought the problem really
> came down to the fact that reloading 7.2 "lo" type definitions into 7.3
> would fail.
Sorry the first scenario is 7.2 pg_dump to dump 7.2 db -> 7.3 pg_restore.
The bug reports I've seen were all such cases.
Your test case seems 7.3 pg_dump to dump 7.2 db -> 7.3 pg_restore.
Are you intending change my hack(? BLOB handling itself is a hack in PG)
to solve both cases.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQL | 2003-01-10 21:57:44 | pgsql-server/src/bin/psql command.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-10 21:25:41 | Re: pgsql-server/src/bin/pg_dump pg_backup_archiver.c |