On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:16:35AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, if we didn't want to fix this, a reasonable way to go about > it would be to bump the archive version number in pg_dump output, > so that old versions would issue a useful complaint instead of crashing. > However, I repeat that this patch was sold as a notational improvement, > not something that was going to break format compatibility. I think if > anyone had mentioned the latter, there would have been push-back against > its being committed at all. I am providing such push-back right now, > because I don't think we should break file compatibility for this.
While I agree that the patch makes handling of the different fields in archive entries cleaner, I agree as well that this is not enough to justify a dump version bump. > I think this patch needs to be worked over so that what it writes > is exactly what was written before. If the author is unwilling > to do that PDQ, it should be reverted. Works for me. With a quick read of the code, it seems to me that it is possible to keep compatibility while keeping the simplifications around ArchiveEntry()'s refactoring. Alvaro? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
