Just weighing in here.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It doesn't seem worth it
> to try to support parallel restore from nearly-obsolete versions, and
> I suspect that we couldn't do it even if we tried --- the reason the
> representation got changed is that the old way simply didn't work for
> any significant use of the dependency info. =A0Just ignoring the
> dependencies, as your patch effectively proposes, is going to lead to
> restore failures or worse.
Just to clarify, the only part that would not be supported would be
the parallel part, right?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
