-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chris Travers wrote:
> 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. Just 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?
Far as I can tell yes, since this fix_dependencies() function is only
called for parallel restores code path.
That would seem to indicate that in the case of partial archives these
missing deps wouldn't cause any worse failure than they otherwise would,
since they'd be just as missing if you did a normal restore vs. a
parallel one.
- --
Jon T Erdman (aka StuckMojo)
PostgreSQL Zealot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAktV/WUACgkQRAk1+p0GhSE6JwCeJ9Yalsx6nkffrxxjjfw5Te4M
g+cAnjimrcof/ziEda0kSLI4/A8ln5Jj
=pibw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----