Re: pg_upgade vs config

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Date: 2016-10-02 18:03:49
Message-ID: 1795ade5-ce00-5521-b024-c0a622f6871f@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/02/2016 01:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So then why are the pre-upgrade and post-upgrade dumps different?
> Because pg_dump with --binary-upgrade neglects to emit
>
> ALTER EXTENSION bloom ADD ACCESS METHOD bloom;

That's what I suspected.

>
> which it would need to do in order to make this work right. The other
> small problem is that there is no such ALTER EXTENSION syntax in the
> backend. This is a rather major oversight in the patch that added DDL
> support for access methods, if you ask me.

I agree.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-10-02 18:14:01 Re: pg_upgade vs config
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-10-02 17:53:34 Re: pg_upgade vs config