Re: Is this a bug?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:27:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:11:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> > >> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > >> > <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> >>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten that
> > >> >>> up.
> > >> >> The attached patch tighten that up.
> > >> > Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 IMO, somewhat
> > >> > grouping with what has been done in a6542a4 for SET and ABORT.
> > >>
> > >> Meh. There will always be another thing we could squeeze in; I don't
> > >> think this is particularly urgent, and it's late to the party.
> > >
> > > Do we want this patch for 9.5? It throws an error for invalid reloption
> > > specifications.
> >
> > Fine with me. But I have a vague recollection of seeing pg_upgrade
> > doing this on purpose to create TOAST tables or something... am I
> > misremembering?
>
> Yes, you remember well. I will have to find a different way for
> pg_upgrade to call a no-op ALTER TABLE, which is fine.

Looking at the ALTER TABLE options, I am going to put this check in a
!IsBinaryUpgrade block so pg_upgrade can still use its trick.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +