On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 09/27/2012 06:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Having said all that, I don't think we have a lot of choices here. >>> A "tar format" output option that isn't actually tar format has hardly >>> any excuse to live at all. > >> I agree, but it's possibly worth pointing out that GNU tar has no >> trouble at all processing the erroneous format, and the "file" program >> on my Linux system has no trouble recognizing it as a tar archive. > > Well, they're falling back to assuming that the file is a pre-POSIX > tarfile, which is why you don't see string user/group names for > instance. > >> Nevertheless, I think we should fix all live versions of pg_dump make >> all live versions of pg-restore accept both formats. > > I think it's clear that we should make all versions of pg_restore accept > either spelling of the magic string. It's less clear that we should > change the output of pg_dump in back branches though. I think the only > reason we'd not get complaints about that is that not that many people > are relying on tar-format output anyway. Anybody who is would probably > be peeved if version 8.3.21 pg_restore couldn't read the output of > version 8.3.22 pg_dump.
There's no real point to using the tar format in pg_dump, really, is there? Which is why I think most people just don't use it. pg_basebackup in tar format is a much more useful thing, of course... So we could fix just pg_basebackup in backbranches (since we never read anything, it shouldn't be that big a problem), and then do pg_dump in HEAD only? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
