2016-09-27 23:12 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 9/27/16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I'm not exactly convinced that you did. There's only one copy of > >> Archive->remoteVersion, and you're overwriting it long before the > >> dump process is over. > > > It does not seem that I'm "overwriting it long before the dump process > > is over"... > > There's a lot that happens during RestoreArchive. Even if none of it > inspects remoteVersion today, I do not think that's a safe assumption to > make going forward. The easiest counterexample is that this very bit of > code you want to add does so. I really do not want to get into a design > that says "remoteVersion means the source server version until we reach > RestoreArchive, and the target version afterwards". That way madness > lies. If we're going to try altering the emitted SQL based on target > version, let's first create a separation between those concepts; otherwise > I will bet that we add more bugs than we remove. > > (The other thing I'd want here is a --target-version option so that > you could get the same output alterations in pg_dump or pg_restore to > text. Otherwise it's nigh undebuggable, and certainly much harder > to test than it needs to be.) >
This options likes like very good idea. Regards Pavel > > 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 >
