> On 26 May 2017, at 17:08, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
>> While hacking on pg_upgrade in downstream Greenplum I ran into an error which
>> seems like an old, and obscure, bug in pg_dump (unrelated to pg_upgrade).
>> pg_dump generates incorrect SQL for an operator class which has no operators 
>> or
>> procedures, and which has the same column and storage types.
> Good catch.
>> The attached patch adds a belts-and-suspenders check in dumpOpclass() which
>> appends the STORAGE clause in case nothing had been added.
> Seems reasonable (the comment could use some wordsmithing maybe) ...
>> ... The DROP in
>> alter_generic is also removed to exercise the code path, being able to
>> pg_upgrade what is executed in regression seem like a good idea.
> ... but that's a nonstarter.  We can't have the regression tests leaving
> global objects (users) lying around.

Fair enough, 

> I'll commit and back-patch this without a test case.  Possibly Frost will
> be excited enough about it to add something to the pg_dump TAP tests,
> but those tests are too opaque for me to want to do so.


cheers ./daniel

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to