Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > The attached one-liner seems to do the trick. It should probably be > backpatched to 9.1. Remaining questions:
Thanks for the patch (and testing, etc, that it entails)! > 1) Are there other database object types, likely to be included in > extension scripts, that are also lacking dependency records to > their extension? To be honest I'm quite surprised that we missed rules at all. I think what happened is that for views we only track the pg_class entry they have, and missed that you can still use rules in other contexts… Thinking about it, what happens with your patch for an extension providing views: I'd guess the RULE(s) are registered themselves as well as the RULEs they build-on, and I don't know what to expect of the pg_dump behavior in such case… > 2) How should we handle already installed extensions, which will still > lack dependency records after this bugfix? I don't really see any other way here than providing an upgrade script that will somehow re-attach those objects, either by directly messing with pg_depends (that is, when there's a systematic way to get the OIDs of the missing RULEs), or by maybe doing a drop/create on the RULEs? Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine 06 63 07 10 78 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
