Re: PG upgrade 14->15 fails - database contains our own extension

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Turoň <david(dot)turon(at)linuxbox(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marian Krucina <marian(dot)krucina(at)linuxbox(dot)cz>
Subject: Re: PG upgrade 14->15 fails - database contains our own extension
Date: 2022-10-13 18:51:30
Message-ID: 1061568.1665687090@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> We might be able to put in some kluge in pg_dump to make it less
> likely to fail with existing DBs, but I think the true fix lies
> in adding that dependency.

Here's a draft patch for that. I'm unsure whether it's worth
back-patching; even if we did, we couldn't guarantee that existing
databases would have the additional pg_depend entries.

If we do only put it in HEAD, maybe we should break compatibility
to the extent of changing IsBinaryCoercible's API rather than
inventing a separate call. I'm still not excited about recording
additional dependencies elsewhere, but that path would leave us
with cleaner code if we eventually do that.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
add-missing-cast-dependencies-1.patch text/x-diff 9.6 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-10-13 18:53:38 Re: archive modules
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-10-13 18:46:34 Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file