Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One point after looking back at the previous discussion is that the
>> current version test is too strict: it will complain if your server is
>> 8.2.7 and pg_dump is 8.2.6. We probably should not make a newer minor
>> number a hard error, since 99.99% of the time it would be fine. So
>> while I think newer major should be a hard error regardless of -i,
>> we could consider several responses to newer minor:
>> * silently allow it always
>> * print warning and proceed always
>> * allow -i to control error vs warning for this case only.
> I think it should be silent. Do we ever change the server behavior that
> is visible to pg_dump in a minor release?
It's hardly out of the question --- consider the backslash-escaping
security fixes we applied in 8.1.4, 8.0.8, etc. Parts of the server
changes were intended to intentionally break unpatched clients, and
I think that'd apply to unpatched pg_dump as well.
Of course, that precedent suggests that any such change would be made in
such a way as to be enforced on the server side, so it wouldn't matter
if pg_dump didn't know it wouldn't work.
Silent allow is fine with me, I was just wondering if anyone liked
the other options better.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
