From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Vejsada <pve@paymorrow.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:32:04 -0400
Message-ID: <540147.1655321524@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220614230949.GX29853@telsasoft.com>
References: <3383880.QJadu78ljV@vejsadalnx>
<CAKFQuwbUUwkO0ffRY4+z4Hs9-jRjAUwGHZrDKyHhRudWVhtgkw@mail.gmail.com>
<20220614230949.GX29853@telsasoft.com>
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> But Petr has a point - pg_upgrade should aspire to catch errors in --check,
> rather than starting and then leaving a mess behind for the user to clean up
Agreed; pg_upgrade has historically tried to find problems similar to
this. However, it's not just aggregates that are at risk. People
might also have built user-defined plain functions, or operators,
atop these functions. How far do we want to go in looking?
As for the query, I think it could be simplified quite a bit by
relying on regprocedure literals, that is something like
WHERE ... a.aggtransfn IN
('array_append(anyarray,anyelement)'::regprocedure,
'array_prepend(anyelement,anyarray)'::regprocedure,
...)
Not sure if it's necessary to stick explicit "pg_catalog." schema
qualifications into this --- IIRC pg_upgrade runs with restrictive
search_path, so that this would be safe as-is.
Also, I think you need to check aggfinalfn too.
Also, I'd be inclined to reject system-provided objects by checking
for OID >= 16384 rather than hard-wiring assumptions about things
being in pg_catalog or not.
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, pryzby@telsasoft.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, pve@paymorrow.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
In-Reply-To: <540147.1655321524@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