Re: pg_upgade vs config

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 13:50:44
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSbyQwRqsEd_cW+0+Y8i0JXBNnZ-rJ8h6LuPZ-C+PhLtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It looks like we have some work to do to teach pg_dump about handling access
> methods in extensions. This doesn't look quite as bad as the first issue,
> but it's a pity 9.6 escaped into the wild with this issue.

562f06f3 has addressed this issue 3 months ago, and there is a test in
src/test/modules/test_pg_dump.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-10-02 13:55:43 Re: Showing parallel status in \df+
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-10-02 13:47:04 Re: Forbid use of LF and CR characters in database and role names