On 2014-04-04 17:24:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-04-04 14:56:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't find that to be a good idea at all. pg_dump is probably not the > >> only code that believes it can select a creation target with search_path, > >> no matter what that target is. > > > Sure, but how many of those are trying to put things in pg_catalog? > > Maybe not many, but pg_dump itself certainly can try to do that. > (Most of the time, pg_dump won't dump things in pg_catalog, but there > are exceptions, eg --binary-upgrade dump of an extension containing > objects in pg_catalog.)
If we're not backpatching, fixing that seems easy enough? pg_upgrade definitely needs the pg_dump around, so that should be fine. I don't like my own suggestion, which isn't a good sign, but I haven't heard anything I like more :(. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
