From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump bug for extension owned tables |
Date: | 2020-10-07 12:46:03 |
Message-ID: | 8f30cf19-efa4-f0b0-15e0-5533aae6509d@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/6/20 5:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Thanks, Committed. Further investigation shows this was introduced in
>> release 12, so that's how far back I went.
> Still further investigation shows that this patch caused bug #16655 [1].
> It should *not* have been designed to unconditionally clear the
> table's "interesting" flag, as there may have been other reasons
> why that was set. The right way to think about it is "if we are
> going to dump the table's data, then the table certainly needs its
> interesting flag set, so that we'll collect the per-attribute info.
> Otherwise leave well enough alone".
Yes, I see the issue. Mea culpa :-(
>
> The patches I proposed in the other thread seem like they really ought
> to go all the way back for safety's sake. However, I do not observe
> any crash on the test case in v11, and I'm kind of wondering why not.
> Did you identify exactly where this was "introduced in release 12"?
It looks like you've since discovered the cause here. Do you need me to
dig more?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy Fan | 2020-10-07 13:05:07 | Re: Improve choose_custom_plan for initial partition prune case |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-10-07 12:40:49 | Re: Improve choose_custom_plan for initial partition prune case |