Re: pg_upgade vs config

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Date: 2016-10-02 23:21:00
Message-ID: 25402.1475450460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> It occurs to me that a back-patchable workaround for this would be to
> make get_loadable_libraries sort the library names in order by length
> (and I guess we might as well sort same-length names alphabetically).
> This would for example guarantee that hstore_plpython is probed after
> both hstore and plpython. Admittedly, this is a kluge of the first
> water. But I see no prospect of back-patching any real fix, and it
> would definitely be better if pg_upgrade didn't fail on these modules.

I've tested the attached and verified that it allows pg_upgrade'ing
of the hstore_plpython regression DB --- or, if I reverse the sort
order, that it reproducibly fails. I propose back-patching this
at least as far as 9.5, where the transform modules came in. It might
be a good idea to go all the way back, just so that the behavior is
predictable.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgupgrade-predictable-LOAD-test-order.patch text/x-diff 5.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-10-03 00:36:39 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-10-02 22:55:29 Re: pg_upgade vs config