Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQCja-00073p-SD for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:56:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQCjZ-0007I7-Of for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:56:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQCjZ-0007Hr-Ig for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:56:09 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kQCjX-0003bC-F0 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:56:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 097Gu53p2232789; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:56:05 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Stephen Frost cc: cam.daniel@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #16655: pg_dump segfault when excluding postgis table In-reply-to: <20201007020820.GY3063@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <20201007020820.GY3063@tamriel.snowman.net> Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost message dated "Tue, 06 Oct 2020 22:08:20 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2232787.1602089765.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 12:56:05 -0400 Message-ID: <2232788.1602089765@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Stephen Frost 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