On 21 March 2014 23:36, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 21 March 2014 20:58, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> It's not the behavior I would choose for a new product, but I can't see >>> benefits sufficient to overturn previous decisions to keep it. > >> Speechless > > The key argument for not "fixing" this is that it would break existing > pg_dump files. That's a pretty hard argument to overcome, unfortunately, > even if you're willing to blow off the possibility that client > applications might contain similar shortcuts. We still do our best to > read dump files from the 7.0 era (see ConvertTriggerToFK() for one example > of going above and beyond for that); and every so often we do hear of > people trying to get data out of such ancient servers. So even if you > went and fixed pg_dump tomorrow, it'd probably be ten or fifteen years > before people would let you stop reading dumps from existing versions.
Noah had already convinced me, but thank you for explaining the issue behind that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
