Hi,
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server
version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard
error, rather than something people could override with -i.
Are you thinking about next major or
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Hi,
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?:
We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server
version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard
error, rather than something people
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
I'm thinking next major. In principle there could be cases where a
minor update could break pg_dump, but it seems unlikely enough that
it's not reasonable to embed such a policy in the code. As for
next major, though, the mere existence of the -i
Dimitri Fontaine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a écrit :
We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server
version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a hard
error, rather than something people could override with -i.
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
Hi,
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2008, Tom Lane a ?crit?:
We have *never* promised that pg_dump version N could dump from server
version N+1 .., in fact, personally I'd like to make that case be a
