Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YCxcQ-0006b9-8f for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:42:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YCxcP-0006R9-Aj for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:42:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YCxcN-0006Qu-8G for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:42:47 +0000 Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([64.68.201.169]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YCxcI-0007if-9I for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:42:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3DEE232; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:42:39 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailout.easymail.ca X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.008 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692] Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (easymail-mailout.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k-Qa8Gn4KZWt; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.16] (unknown [8.39.228.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E182E231; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:42:38 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\)) Subject: Re: pg_dump from older version and pg_restore in newer From: Scott Ribe In-Reply-To: <6397.1421609191@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:42:37 -0700 Cc: pgsql-admin , hemy_perry@mentor.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <686190CB-0222-4E9A-9A94-68B20CCD034B@elevated-dev.com> References: <3552A244-5681-4C35-A2EF-241089E54A86@elevated-dev.com> <6397.1421609191@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org On Jan 18, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >=20 > In principle, ie in the absence of bugs, it should work either way. ... > The reason for the standard recommendation to use the newer version's > pg_dump is the possibility that your old pg_dump contains bugs that have > been fixed in the newer version. This is a non-negligible risk when > you're talking about a pg_dump that's several years old, as 9.1.7 is. > If you were comparing minor releases of similar date, eg 9.1.14 versus > 9.4.0, the risk calculation might shift the other way... Yep. I didn't want to say it out loud in the prior post, but I don't think = I have ever actually used the new dump on the old db. Then again, I'm almos= t never more than 1 point release behind, so my way of doing things is not = generally applicable ;-) --=20 Scott Ribe scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com http://www.elevated-dev.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice --=20 Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin