pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Dumping/restoring fails on inherited generated column
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:37:22 +0300
Message-ID: <0f57d5e9-4112-1ba8-64d8-c02062c1e95d@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8e3f666-9050-1029-42cf-d0ecfdb8902e@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <15830.1575468847@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<fd559544-274c-f514-d8bf-358d2c539455@2ndquadrant.com>
	<31905.1575491779@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<d6ebcc2e-3e6f-6915-6616-70ef665aed66@2ndquadrant.com>
	<24369.1580758361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<b1c831dd-d520-5e7f-0304-0eeed39c9996@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+fd4k4cHKUmEyHiPHx0QL3T-DXAP8O1CP-hUvo1WX6RwNC=tA@mail.gmail.com>
	<3f272982-0e0d-17a1-3fb6-fedc74197676@2ndquadrant.com>
	<c9848634-76c1-3c21-fc19-f1b7eebb640f@2ndquadrant.com>
	<3169466.1594841366@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+fd4k4fck6xzsF8mPWeVSZFBLtiA2cQxrPqBaYcoZGc+hZ=JQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+fd4k6pLzrZDQsdsxcS06AwGRf1DgwOw84sFq9oXNw+83nB1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<e87e2efe-c820-c0d3-f7a0-0789beb78ff1@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAD21AoCfgYKJo3cEhoUr4cKWxmSxi_gdHQDmOJ5XKC-dDc4yBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<e8e3f666-9050-1029-42cf-d0ecfdb8902e@2ndquadrant.com>

On 09.11.2020 13:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-11-06 04:55, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Both of these result in the same change to the dump output.  Both of
>>> them have essentially the same idea.  The first one adds the
>>> conditionals during the information gathering phase of pg_dump, the
>>> second one adds the conditionals during the output phase.
>>>
>>> Any further thoughts?
>> I think the first one is better than the second (mine) because it can
>> save the number of intermediate objects.
>
> I was hoping to wrap this issue up this week, but I found more 
> problems with how these proposed changes interact with 
> --binary-upgrade mode.  I think I need to formalize my findings into 
> pg_dump test cases as a next step.  Then we can figure out what 
> combination of tweaks will make them all work.
>
I am moving this patch to the next CF, but it looks like the discussion 
is a bit stuck.


Peter, can you please share your concerns about the interaction of the 
patch with --binary-upgrade mode? If you don't have time to write tests, 
you can just describe problems.

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company






view thread (37+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <0f57d5e9-4112-1ba8-64d8-c02062c1e95d@postgrespro.ru>
Permalink:  ../0f57d5e9-4112-1ba8-64d8-c02062c1e95d@postgrespro.ru/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/0f57d5e9-4112-1ba8-64d8-c02062c1e95d@postgrespro.ru

 · 

reply
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-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Dumping/restoring fails on inherited generated column
  In-Reply-To: <0f57d5e9-4112-1ba8-64d8-c02062c1e95d@postgrespro.ru>

* 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