| From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brian Weaver <cmdrclueless(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |
| Date: | 2012-02-25 18:10:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1330193409.2593.5.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 09:23 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Brian Weaver wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation since 9.0 has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer by trade it smells like a bug.
>
> It's pg_dump that's emitting the command to create the language. If you ran pg_dump from 9.0+, it would not do so.
Not quite true. pg_dump from 9.0 does save the language definition, but
it uses the new CREATE OR REPLACE statement for languages, so that, when
you restore it in a 9.0+ database that already has the same language, it
won't complain with an error message.
BTW, it isn't odd that pg_dump 9.0 save the language definition. Having
by default the plpgsql language when you create a database doesn't mean
you can't drop it.
> This is an example of why the standard advice for upgrading is to use the newer pg_dump against the older database
Exactly.
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Weaver | 2012-02-25 19:51:20 | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |
| Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2012-02-25 16:23:50 | Re: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists) |