Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsUSd-0001Uz-8L for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:03:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsUSa-0007hp-CD for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:03:48 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsUSa-0007hg-3U for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:03:48 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lsUSS-00077p-Qk for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:03:46 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 15DI3cBs113490; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:03:38 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Wells Oliver cc: pgsql-admin Subject: Re: pg_restore: warning: invalid creation date in header In-reply-to: References: <50545.1623597209@sss.pgh.pa.us> <52307.1623599837@sss.pgh.pa.us> <52961.1623600745@sss.pgh.pa.us> <55481.1623604303@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Wells Oliver message dated "Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:27:17 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <113488.1623607418.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:03:38 -0400 Message-ID: <113489.1623607418@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Wells Oliver writes: > I've still got a lot of testing to do, but it does not look like materially > impacted the restored data.. but definitely caught my eye. No, it doesn't affect the validity of the restored data at all. If you did "pg_restore -l", it would print a bogus archive creation date, but I'm pretty sure we don't use the file timestamp otherwise. regards, tom lane