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

From: Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com>
To:
Cc: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_dump does not properly deal with BEGIN ATOMIC function
Date: 2023-06-05 16:03:46
Message-ID: CAKqncchB20egnRq5GgHquM54U5EqPyzq7usFjjABa08ouEZp_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 vignesh C 2023-06-05 16:09:22 Re: Implement generalized sub routine find_in_log for tap test
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2023-06-05 16:00:34 Re: BUG #17946: LC_MONETARY & DO LANGUAGE plperl - BUG