From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head |
Date: | 2015-08-02 23:06:49 |
Message-ID: | 55BEA289.9020706@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/02/2015 04:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2015-08-01 19:13:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> That's a bug. The test_ddl_deparse suite leaves a shell type, which
>>> pg_upgrade fails to reproduce. Whether to have pg_upgrade support that or
>>> just error out cleanly is another question.
>> There seems little justification to not support shell types. We should
>> also add a shell type to the standard regression testing database,
>> they're "weird" enough that some increased exposure seems like a good
>> idea.
> Agreed. I was a bit surprised to find that pg_dump skips shell types,
> actually. Probably that's a hangover from when "create function foo()
> returns bogus" would autocreate a shell type named "bogus". In all
> modern releases, it's fairly hard to accidentally create a shell type,
> so we should probably assume that the user meant it to be there.
>
>
I'm fine with fixing it, but what's the actual use case for a long lived
shell type?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-02 23:21:11 | Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-08-02 22:18:02 | Re: nodes/*funcs.c inconsistencies |