On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I'm a bit concerned about backwards compatibility issues. It looks to
>>> me like existing versions of pg_restore will flat out reject files that
>>> have a spec-compliant "ustar\0" MAGIC field. Is it going to be
>>> sufficient if we fix this in minor-version updates, or are we going to
>>> need to have a switch that tells pg_dump to emit the incorrect old
>>> format? (Ick.)
>
>> Do we officially support using an older pg_restore to reload a newer
>> dump? I think not? As long as we don't officially support that, I
>> think we'll be ok.
>
> Well, for the -Fc format, we have an explicit version number, and
> pg_restore is supposed to be able to read anything with current or prior
> version number. We don't bump the version number too often, but we've
> definitely done it anytime we added new features at the file-format
> level. However, since the whole point of the -Ft format is to be
> standard-compliant, people might be surprised if it fell over in a
> backwards-compatibility situation.
>
> Having said all that, I don't think we have a lot of choices here.
> A "tar format" output option that isn't actually tar format has hardly
> any excuse to live at all.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - it's really a bugfix...
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
