| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: updates for handling optional argument in system functions |
| Date: | 2026-07-03 13:59:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEx=jiyoJmkb5EaTrq=oMLFpCC_tiso0PkMAGY_4UqSrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 1:50 AM Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io> wrote:
> > Oops, v8.1 attached to correct that white space.
>
> Patches look great Mark!
Some patches no longer apply cleanly on HEAD, so they'll need to be rebased.
I have one question, though.
Suppose a user executes GRANT or REVOKE on pg_get_ruledef(oid), then
creates a dump with pg_dump. If that dump is restored into a newer
server where these patches have been applied, the restore would fail
because pg_get_ruledef(oid) no longer exists.
Is that acceptable (this means that users need to handle the restore
failure), or should pg_dump handle this case specially?
I suspect we've had similar situations before when system functions
changed between major versions, and I don't recall adding special
handling to pg_dump... Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-07-03 14:11:26 | Re: Schema-qualify the equality operator when deparsing NULLIF/IS DISTINCT FROM |
| Previous Message | Florin Irion | 2026-07-03 13:56:53 | Re: psql tab completion for user functions and if explicitly required also "pg_" |