Re: pg_upgade vs config

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Date: 2016-10-02 14:06:37
Message-ID: f62cf62b-d26c-bee2-31b4-849ac443aef4@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/02/2016 09:50 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> It looks like we have some work to do to teach pg_dump about handling access
>> methods in extensions. This doesn't look quite as bad as the first issue,
>> but it's a pity 9.6 escaped into the wild with this issue.
> 562f06f3 has addressed this issue 3 months ago, and there is a test in
> src/test/modules/test_pg_dump.

So then why are the pre-upgrade and post-upgrade dumps different?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-10-02 15:42:37 Re: Hash Indexes
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-10-02 14:03:34 Re: Confusing docs about GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml