Re: pg_upgrade vs user created range type extension

On 09/22/2016 07:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I have just encountered an apparent bug in pg_upgrade (or possibly pg_dump).
> Hmm, it sort of looks like pg_dump believes it should dump the range's
> constructor function in binary-upgrade mode, while the backend is creating
> the constructor function during CREATE TYPE anyway. But if that's the
> case, upgrade of user-defined range types would never have worked ...
> seems like we should have noticed before now.
>
> If that diagnosis is correct, we should either change pg_dump to not
> dump that function, or change CREATE TYPE AS RANGE to not auto-create
> the constructor functions in binary-upgrade mode. The latter might be
> more flexible in the long run.
>
>

Yeah, I think your diagnosis is correct. I'm not sure I see the point of
the flexibility given that you can't specify a constructor function for
range types (if that feature had been available I would probably have
used it in this extension).

cheers

andrew