| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake |
| Date: | 2013-12-29 17:30:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1388338249.72207.YahooMailNeo@web122305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> On reflection, I'm not sure that pg_restore as such should be applying any
> server version check at all. pg_restore itself has precious little to do
> with whether there will be a compatibility problem; that's mostly down to
> the DDL that pg_dump put into the archive file. And we don't have enough
> information to be very sure about whether it will work, short of actually
> trying it. So why should the code arbitrarily refuse to try?
>
> So I'm inclined to propose that we set min/max to 0 and 999999 here.
Something like the attached back-patched to 8.4?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| restore-version-limits-v1.patch | text/x-diff | 888 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-29 17:38:00 | Re: [BUG FIX] Version number expressed in octal form by mistake |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-29 17:09:30 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |