Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we need to do *something* (and accordingly have added this to
>> the 9.3 open items page so we don't forget about it). Whether Robert's
>> idea is the best one probably depends in part on how clean the patch
>> turns out to be.

> The attached patch attempts to implement this. I discovered that, in
> fact, we have a number of places in our initdb-time scripts that rely
> on the current behavior, but they weren't hard to fix; and in fact I
> think the extra verbosity is probably not a bad thing here.

> See what you think.

I think this breaks contrib/adminpack, and perhaps other extensions.
They'd not be hard to fix with script changes, but they'd be broken.

In general, we would now have a situation where relocatable extensions
could never be installed into pg_catalog. That might be OK, but at
least it would need to be documented.

Also, I think we'd be pretty much hard-wiring the decision that pg_dump
will never dump objects in pg_catalog, because its method for selecting
the creation schema won't work in that case. That probably is all right
too, but we need to realize it's a consequence of this.

As far as the code goes, OK except I strongly disapprove of removing
the comment about temp_missing at line 3512. The coding is not any less
a hack in that respect for having been pushed into a subroutine. If
you want to rewrite the comment, fine, but failing to point out that
something funny is going on is not a service to readers.

regards, tom lane