Re: bad dependency in pg_dump output related to support function breaks binary upgrade

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bad dependency in pg_dump output related to support function breaks binary upgrade
Date: 2020-12-21 18:26:14
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBngya6-ZA0y3YRpZ5qrAi4gi5ipZhw9fEeZC5aTLU9Fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

po 21. 12. 2020 v 17:23 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > some Orafce's user reported problems with pg_upgrade. I checked this
> issue
> > and it looks like pg_dump problem:
> > ...
> > the supporting function should be dumped first before function where
> > supporting function is used.
>
> I tried to reproduce this and could not. It should work, since
> ProcedureCreate definitely makes a dependency on the support function.
> Can you make a self-contained test case?
>

After some deeper investigation I found an old bug in Orafce :-/. I am
sorry for the noise.

This old bug is related to introduction aliases types of varchar -
nvarchar2 and varchar2. In this age the "in" function can use a
protransform column, but there was not a possibility how to set this column
externally, and Orafce used dirty update. The value was correct, but the
new dependency was not used. Originally it was not a problem, because the
transform function was built in. But there was a new issue related to
Postgres 12 when these functions were renamed. I fixed this issue by
introducing my own wrapping function - but without dependency I broke the
binary upgrade.

On Postgres 12 and higher I can use ALTER FUNCTION SUPPORT and all works
well. On older platforms I have to hack pg_depend, but it is working too.

Again I am sorry for false alarm

Regards

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-12-21 18:31:32 Re: BUG #16079: Question Regarding the BUG #16064
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-12-21 18:15:37 Re: Weird special case in jsonb_concat()