On 2019-Feb-26, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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.
Yeah, it was a nice thing to have, but I didn't keep in mind that we ought to be able to provide such upwards compatibility. (Is this upwards or downwards or backwards or forwards compatibility, now, actually? I can't quite figure it out which direction it goes.) > > 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? Yeah, let me review the patch Dmitry just sent. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services