From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bad dependency in pg_dump output related to support function breaks binary upgrade |
Date: | 2020-12-21 18:26:14 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBngya6-ZA0y3YRpZ5qrAi4gi5ipZhw9fEeZC5aTLU9Fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
po 21. 12. 2020 v 17:23 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > some Orafce's user reported problems with pg_upgrade. I checked this
> issue
> > and it looks like pg_dump problem:
> > ...
> > the supporting function should be dumped first before function where
> > supporting function is used.
>
> I tried to reproduce this and could not. It should work, since
> ProcedureCreate definitely makes a dependency on the support function.
> Can you make a self-contained test case?
>
After some deeper investigation I found an old bug in Orafce :-/. I am
sorry for the noise.
This old bug is related to introduction aliases types of varchar -
nvarchar2 and varchar2. In this age the "in" function can use a
protransform column, but there was not a possibility how to set this column
externally, and Orafce used dirty update. The value was correct, but the
new dependency was not used. Originally it was not a problem, because the
transform function was built in. But there was a new issue related to
Postgres 12 when these functions were renamed. I fixed this issue by
introducing my own wrapping function - but without dependency I broke the
binary upgrade.
On Postgres 12 and higher I can use ALTER FUNCTION SUPPORT and all works
well. On older platforms I have to hack pg_depend, but it is working too.
Again I am sorry for false alarm
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-21 18:31:32 | Re: BUG #16079: Question Regarding the BUG #16064 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-21 18:15:37 | Re: Weird special case in jsonb_concat() |