From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PROPERTY GRAPH pg_dump ACL minimization
In-reply-to: <20260630023308.c7.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
References: <20260630023308.c7.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
	message dated "Mon, 29 Jun 2026 19:33:08 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2453088.1782789061.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 23:11:01 -0400
Message-ID: <2453089.1782789061@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2453089.1782789061%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> Most of the patch bulk (modest as it is) exists to keep support for dump=
ing
> from beta1.  I'm not sure whether it was worth bothering.  Breaking dump=
 from
> a beta is without precedent known to me, so I just erred on the side of =
not
> breaking it.  If we were to decide pg_dump could drop support for betas,=
 I'd
> be fine with that.

> This entails a catversion bump on the v19 branch.

Those points are not unrelated.  If you bump catversion then beta
testers must use pg_upgrade to get from beta1 to beta2, so you should
not drop support for dumping from beta1.

I could agree with dropping that support after beta2, though.  That'd
imply having to update via beta2 to beta3 or later, but I doubt those
hardy enough to test beta1 would have a problem with that.

> If the master branch
> already has a post-branch catversion bump by then, the two catversions s=
hould
> remain distinct.  I'll use yyyymmdd1 for v19 and yyyymmdd2 for master.

Check.

(I didn't read the patch, just responded to your commentary.)

			regards, tom lane