From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.1] 2 bugs with extensions |
Date: | 2012-10-25 15:25:05 |
Message-ID: | 28591.1351178705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> No, just remove the RELKIND_UNCATALOGUED case in that switch.
> Oh. As in the attached?:)
I don't think you tested this patch in 9.2 or HEAD, because it bleats
like mad. I installed an extension containing
create sequence extseq;
select pg_catalog.pg_extension_config_dump('extseq', '');
into the regression database, and then did:
$ pg_dump -Fc regression >r.dump
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
pg_dump: [archiver] WARNING: archive items not in correct section order
The reason is that it calls dumpSequence() to emit the SEQUENCE SET
archive item during table-data dumping, but the archive item gets marked
SECTION_PRE_DATA. As of 9.2 we have to be rigid about keeping those
section markings correct and in-sequence. This is not really right in
9.1 either (wouldn't be surprised if it breaks parallel restore).
The fact that SEQUENCE SET is considered pre-data has bitten us several
times already, eg
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-05/msg00084.php
I think it may be time to bite the bullet and change that (including
breaking dumpSequence() into two separate functions). I'm a little bit
worried about the compatibility implications of back-patching such a
change, though. Is it likely that anybody out there is depending on the
fact that, eg, pg_dump --section=pre-data currently includes SEQUENCE SET
items? Personally I think it's more likely that that'd be seen as a
bug, but ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit kapila | 2012-10-25 15:31:18 | Re: [WIP PATCH] for Performance Improvement in Buffer Management |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-25 15:09:00 | Re: [RFC][PATCH] wal decoding, attempt #2 |