Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server
Date
Msg-id 1253995375.2880.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 16:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "shakahshakah@gmail.com" <shakahshakah@gmail.com> writes:
> > From pg_dump/pg_restore section (9.2 of the Todo page on the
> > PostgreSQL Wiki), is the following item
> >   "Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the
> > database server"
> > simply asking for a change to the pg_dump header from:
> 
> I think so, but what's not clear is whether this is a good idea to do
> in the default output.  It might only be appropriate in "verbose" mode,
> so as not to introduce unnecessary diffs between logically identical
> dumps.

Well, a diff of the same database made by different (major) versions of
pg_dump will already be different in most situations, so adding the
pg_dump version number in it is essentially free from this perspective.

What is the use case for adding the server version?

I can imagine something like wanting to know exactly where the dump came
from, but then host name and such would be better.  (And then you can
infer the server version from that.)

> Another issue is that it's not all that clear what to do or how to do it
> for archive dumps --- do you then want both pg_dump and pg_restore to
> tell you about themselves?

I don't see a good reason for pg_restore to get involved.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby on git
Next
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby on git