> On 17 Jun 2025, at 04:58, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There are enough moving parts in that area
> already that I'm not eager to add more constraints to what pg_dump
> needs to do.
Agreed. I we were to do anything I think a check in pg_upgrade would be more
appropriate than altering pg_dump (but I'm not sure it's worth spending the
cycles in every upgrade to test for this, the check phase is already quite
extensive).
--
Daniel Gustafsson