"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 t
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
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 w
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 pe
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 m
