Re: 9.2 upgrade glitch with search_path

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>, Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.2 upgrade glitch with search_path
Date: 2013-01-15 21:05:23
Message-ID: 20130115210523.GB27932@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:51:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> writes:
> > Built & installed 9.2.3. Dumped 9.1 db (using 9.2 pg_dump IIRC). Restored.
> > Database search path was not restored. Had to execute alter database ... set search_path to...
>
> That's a hole in the particular dump methodology you selected:
>
> > pg_dumpall -g -f roles.dump
> > pg_dump -F c -Z 0 -v pedcard > db.dump
>
> pg_dump does not dump/restore database properties, only database
> contents. Properties are the responsibility of pg_dumpall, which
> you bypassed (for databases anyway).
>
> There's been some discussion of refactoring these responsibilities,
> but no consensus.

pg_upgrade fixed this for pg_dumpall -g --binary-upgrade by outputing
the per-database settings.

Isn't this a bug? Seems there is no way to get these exported without
pg_dumpall non-'g' mode.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Angelico 2013-01-15 21:10:26 Re: plpython intermittent ImportErrors
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-01-15 21:02:33 Re: Linux Distribution Preferences?