Re: PG upgrade 14->15 fails - database contains our own extension

I wrote:
> Hmm ... I think it's a very ancient bug that somehow David has avoided
> tripping over up to now.

Looking closer, I don't see how b55f2b692 could have changed pg_dump's
opinion of the order to sort these three casts in; that sort ordering
logic is old enough to vote. So I'm guessing that in fact this *never*
worked. Perhaps this extension has never been through pg_upgrade before,
or at least not with these casts?

> We might be able to put in some kluge in pg_dump to make it less
> likely to fail with existing DBs, but I think the true fix lies
> in adding that dependency.

I don't see any painless way to fix this in pg_dump, and I'm inclined
not to bother trying if it's not a regression. Better to spend the
effort on the backend-side fix.

On the backend side, really anyplace that we consult IsBinaryCoercible
during DDL is at hazard. While there aren't a huge number of such
places, there's certainly more than just CreateCast. I'm trying to
decide how much trouble it's worth going to there. I could be wrong,
but I think that only the cast-vs-cast case is really likely to be
problematic for pg_dump, given that it dumps casts pretty early now.
So it might be sufficient to fix that one case.

regards, tom lane