From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: cam.daniel@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16655: pg_dump segfault when excluding postgis table
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 12:56:05 -0400
Message-ID: <2232788.1602089765@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201007020820.GY3063@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20201007020820.GY3063@tamriel.snowman.net>
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> This all sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I've gone back and
> looked through things a bit and agree that processExtensionTables really
> should be setting interesting to true for extension config tables when
> we decide we want to include them. Your 0003 patch looks correct to me,
> and it does seem like we need to go all the way back with that.
Pushed now, thanks for looking it over.
I ended up dropping 0001 (the ncheck refactoring). That's not really
relevant to the bug fix, and it occurred to me that dumping core if
the checkexprs data isn't there isn't such a bad thing. 0001 would
have led us to silently act as though the table has no CHECK constraints,
contrary to reality, if we reached one of those loops without having
loaded the requisite data. Crashing is better --- think of it as a
free Assert ;-).
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sfrost@snowman.net, cam.daniel@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16655: pg_dump segfault when excluding postgis table
In-Reply-To: <2232788.1602089765@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox