From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |
Date: | 2019-11-10 21:05:43 |
Message-ID: | 4650.1573419943@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Although this is a really straightforward patch and I've tested it
>> against appropriate old versions (9.1 and 9.2), I'm very hesitant
>> to shove it in so soon before a release wrap. Should I do that, or
>> let it wait till after the wrap?
> Having read the patch I agree that it's trivial enough that I wouldn't be
> worried to let it slip through. However, given that we've lacked the check for
> a few releases, is it worth rushing with the potential for a last-minute
> "oh-shit"?
Probably not, really --- the main argument for that is just that it'd fit
well with the fixes Tomas already made.
>> + /* arrays over any type selected so far */
>> + " SELECT t.oid FROM pg_catalog.pg_type t, x WHERE typelem = x.oid AND typtype = 'b' "
> No need to check typlen?
Yeah, that's intentional. A fixed-length array type over a problematic
type would be just as much of a problem as a varlena array type.
The case shouldn't apply to any of the existing problematic types,
but I was striving for generality.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-10 21:12:38 | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2019-11-10 21:01:21 | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |