Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Date: 2022-07-30 00:22:35
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a patch that uses a variant of that approach: it just runs
> safe_psql straight up and gets the output, then writes it out to temp
> files if the output doesn't match and we need to run diff. Let me know
> what you think of this.

That looks good to me, although obviously I don't know for sure
if it will make wrasse happy.

> While working on this, I noticed a few other problems. One is that the
> query doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, which it really should, or the
> output won't be stable. And the other is that I think we should be
> testing against the regression database, not the postgres database,
> because it's got a bunch of user tables in it, not just
> pg_largeobject.

Both of those sound like "d'oh" observations to me. +1

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-07-30 02:37:02 Re: Inconvenience of pg_read_binary_file()
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-07-30 00:08:02 Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade