Re: BUG #12465: Materialized view dump restoration issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: jeff(dot)casavant(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #12465: Materialized view dump restoration issue
Date: 2015-01-09 21:38:11
Message-ID: 13445.1420839491@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> On 2015-01-09 21:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is not a pg_dump bug, this is a broken definition of function a().
>> That function will fail in any context where the caller changes
>> search_path, not only pg_dump. You can perhaps get away without that
>> in a single-schema database, but not with multiple schemas.

> AFAIK there isn't a way to write inlineable SQL functions in relocatable
> extensions in that way, since you don't know which schema they end up
> installed in. The original test case comes from PostGIS.

You can do it for relocatable-at-install-time extensions, as suggested in
the manual:

CREATE FUNCTION ... SET search_path = @extschema@ ...

> But I think the bigger problem is that naively thinking it shouldn't be
> this easy to create unrestorable databases. But perhaps I'm being
> overly naive.

Well, if you know how to inform pg_dump what random assumptions about
search_path exist in the functions invoked by a matview (or expression
index, or some other cases), let me know.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2015-01-09 21:50:44 Re: BUG #12465: Materialized view dump restoration issue
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2015-01-09 21:17:53 Re: BUG #12465: Materialized view dump restoration issue