Re: pg_dump throwing "column number -1 is out of range 0..36" on HEAD

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_dump throwing "column number -1 is out of range 0..36" on HEAD
Date: 2019-05-22 18:17:41
Message-ID: 7594.1558549061@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Wouldn't the better fix be to change
> if (PQgetisnull(res, i, i_amname))
> tblinfo[i].amname = NULL;
> into
> if (i_amname == -1 || PQgetisnull(res, i, i_amname))
> tblinfo[i].amname = NULL;
> it's much more scalable than adding useless columns everywhere, and we
> already use that approach with i_checkoption (and at a number of other
> places).

FWIW, I think that's a pretty awful idea, and the fact that some
people have had it before doesn't make it less awful. It's giving
up the ability to detect errors-of-omission, which might easily
be harmful rather than harmless errors.

It does seem like we're overdue to rethink how pg_dump handles
cross-version query differences ... but inconsistently lobotomizing
its internal error detection is not a good start on that.

>> Looks like the right fix. I'm sad that the buildfarm did not catch
>> this ... why wouldn't the cross-version-upgrade tests have seen it?

> I suspect we just didn't notice that it saw that:
> as it's just a notice, not a failure.

Hm. But shouldn't we have gotten garbage output from the pg_dump run?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-05-22 18:20:27 Re: Teach pg_upgrade test to honor NO_TEMP_INSTALL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-22 18:06:47 Re: Teach pg_upgrade test to honor NO_TEMP_INSTALL