Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7952.1201793154@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> 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. > Are you thinking about next major or minor version ? All the same? > Is there some real good reason not to dump say 8.2.6 server with the pg_dump > from an 8.2.5 installation? 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 switch is a foot-gun with no significant value. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: