| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and missing loadable libraries |
| Date: | 2017-06-04 19:28:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20170604192854.GF2672@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 02:30:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I didn't want to optimize for it --- I wanted a way to detect when DROP
> > EXTENSION has no hope of working, and give more details. I assume the
> > problem with that is the the object names are inside SQL scripts that
> > cannot be easily interrogated. Are the pg_proc entries tied to the
> > extension in some verifiable way that we could identify orphaned pg_proc
> > lines?
>
> You could look for 'e'-type pg_depend entries.
OK, I will run some tests later and report back. Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-04 19:35:21 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-06-04 19:19:06 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |