Tom Lane wrote:
[snip]
> Probably the only way we can make this design work is to bump the
> archive version number so that older pg_restores will fail. (Whereupon
> there is no need to rename the entry type BTW.) This is slightly
> annoying but it's not like we've not done it multiple times before.
>
> If we wanted to keep backwards compatibility, we'd have to leave
> the lo_create responsibility with the BLOBS item, and have the
> BLOB metadata items be things that just add ACLs/ownership/comments
> without doing the actual create, and have to be processed after
> BLOBS instead of before it. This is probably workable but it
> doesn't seem to me that it's accomplishing the goal of making blobs
> work like normal objects.
>
> So, any objections to bumping the version number?
>
>
>
When I read the snipped part of this email my immediate thought was "Why
aren't we bumping the archive version number?"
So +1 for this course of action.
cheers
andrew