Re: Create language syntax is not proper in pg_dumpall and not working using pg_upgrade

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Create language syntax is not proper in pg_dumpall and not working using pg_upgrade
Date: 2017-07-25 18:24:20
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ4ob1fB4BEm1NJD=RdnBVbGzCeKj5tVzoHPpSWBF7fZw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.
>
> Robert wants perfection, of course ;-). As do we all. But there are
> only so many hours in the day, and rejiggering pg_dump's rules about
> how to dump PLs is just way down the to-do list. I'm going to go do
> something with more tangible benefit, like see if we can make its
> REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW commands come out at the right time.

+1 to all of that. I'm only arguing that there's a difference between
the things that are worth fixing and the things that are formally
bugs. This may not be worth fixing, but I think it's formally a bug,
because you could easily expect it to work and there's no user-facing
documentation anywhere that says it doesn't. However, I'm no doubt
about the relative priority of this vs. the other issue you mention.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-07-25 18:29:50 Re: More race conditions in logical replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-25 17:58:20 Re: Create language syntax is not proper in pg_dumpall and not working using pg_upgrade