| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |
| Date: | 2016-01-09 00:07:35 |
| Message-ID: | 9023.1452298055@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> writes:
> On 01/08/2016 01:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, it's just a bug. Although apparently not many people do that, or
>> we'd have heard complaints before.
> That dredged up a memory from way back:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200411251906.43881.aklaver@comcast.net
> in particular:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20077.1101510670@sss.pgh.pa.us
Well, that was a long time ago. Now that we have extensions, it should
be possible for pg_dump to do the right thing with an extension's members
whether they're in pg_catalog or not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-09 00:13:59 | Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |
| Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2016-01-08 23:41:47 | Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |