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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [PATCH] 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server
Date
Msg-id 201002232227.o1NMR0c23595@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] 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: [PATCH] 8.5 TODO: Add comments to output indicating version of pg_dump and of the database server
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> However, has the patch actually been reviewed? �pg_dump is a piece of
> >> code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong,
> >> and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out
> >> in particular cases.
> 
> > It's a fairly trivial patch.  I took a quick look at it.  It needs
> > more than that, but I think not too much more.  I think it would be
> > less effort for someone to review it and make a decision than it would
> > be to keep it as an open item for the next 6 months.  But that's just
> > MHO: if the consensus is to postpone it, then let's just do that and
> > move on.
> 
> Well, "trivial" and "correct" are entirely different things :-(.
> If we're still talking about
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/c2ee6dbd0909270432hd7773edk144080185fb5259d@mail.gmail.com

Yes, that is the patch.

> then it is in fact printing the wrong thing for pg_dump's version.

Uh, right now it is printing:
-- pg_dump version: 9.0devel---- remote database version: 9.0devel (90000)

That is in the SQL output file.

> PG_VERSION is a compiled-in constant so what you will get when examining
> an archive is pg_restore's version not pg_dump's version.  This is
> no doubt fixable but it looks like the code doesn't currently bother
> to set archiveDumpVersion in the plain pg_dump code path, so it's
> not entirely trivial.

So you are saying if you run pg_restore on the SQL dump file, it doesn't
pick up the version?  I didn't even know pg_restore could do that for
text dump files.  In fact, I can't get it to work:
$ pg_dump -v test > /rtmp/x...$ pg_restore -l /rtmp/x -d testpg_restore: [archiver] input file does not appear to be a
validarchive
 

I obviously am missing something.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: function side effects
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: auto_explain log_verbose causes regression failure