Re: [BUG] pg_dump does not properly deal with BEGIN ATOMIC function

From: Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_dump does not properly deal with BEGIN ATOMIC function
Date: 2023-06-13 10:10:37
Message-ID: CAKqnccg0KcABGXzPJagc7nE5ePb-yZ6LMCRuD_bf8h04_HRhrA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Quick follow-up: I've heard back from AWS regarding applying Tom Lane's
patch. Nope. RDS releases numbered versions, nothing else. As Postgres is
now at 15.8/15.3 in the wild and on 15.7/15.3 on RDS, I'm guessing that the
patch won't be available until 14.9/15.4.

Am I right in thinking that this patch will be integrated into 14.9/15.4,
if they are released?

Thank you

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:20 PM Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Reminds me to say a *big* *thank you* to everyone involved in and
> contributing to Postgres development for making error messages which are so
> good. For a programmer, error text is a primary UI. Most Postgres errors
> and log messages are clear and sufficient. Even when they're a bit obscure,
> they alway seem to be *on topic*, and enough to get you on the right
> track.I assume that we've all used programs and operating systems that emit
> more....runic...errors.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:03 PM Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Another suggestion for AWS/RDS: Expose *all of the logs in the upgrade
>> tool chain*. If I'd had all of the logs at the start of this, I'd have
>> been able to track down the issue myself quite quickly. Setting up that
>> simple case database took me less than an hour today. Without the logs,
>> it's been impossible (until the RDS patch a month ago) and difficult (now)
>> to get a sense of what's happening.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:19 PM Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> .. to strings of other lengths. So the new output (before 016107478
>>>> fixed it) is
>>>>
>>>> pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
>>>> pg_dump: detail: FUNCTION a_f (ID 216 OID 40532)
>>>> pg_dump: detail: CONSTRAINT a_pkey (ID 3466 OID 40531)
>>>> pg_dump: detail: POST-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3612)
>>>> pg_dump: detail: TABLE DATA a (ID 3610 OID 40525)
>>>> pg_dump: detail: PRE-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3611)
>>>>
>>>> regards, tom lane
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-06-13 10:26:23 Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-06-13 10:05:56 RE: [PATCH] Reuse Workers and Replication Slots during Logical Replication