Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> However, has the patch actually been reviewed? pg_dump is a piece of >> code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong, >> and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out >> in particular cases.
> It's a fairly trivial patch. I took a quick look at it. It needs > more than that, but I think not too much more. I think it would be > less effort for someone to review it and make a decision than it would > be to keep it as an open item for the next 6 months. But that's just > MHO: if the consensus is to postpone it, then let's just do that and > move on. Well, "trivial" and "correct" are entirely different things :-(. If we're still talking about http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/c2ee6dbd0909270432hd7773edk144080185fb52...@mail.gmail.com then it is in fact printing the wrong thing for pg_dump's version. PG_VERSION is a compiled-in constant so what you will get when examining an archive is pg_restore's version not pg_dump's version. This is no doubt fixable but it looks like the code doesn't currently bother to set archiveDumpVersion in the plain pg_dump code path, so it's not entirely trivial. 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
