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 1oHaFn-0001aG-2R for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 00:22:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oHaFk-0006PG-RA for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 00:22:48 +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 1oHaFk-0006P7-7K for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 00:22:48 +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 1oHaFe-00043a-7q for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 00:22:44 +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 26U0MZf2139505; Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:22:35 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Noah Misch , Andrew Dunstan , Bruce Momjian , Michael Paquier , Justin Pryzby , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" , Shruthi Gowda Subject: Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade In-reply-to: References: <20220702154917.GM13040@telsasoft.com> <3901843.1659116952@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4152163.1659124804@sss.pgh.pa.us> <125444.1659136594! @sss.pgh.pa.us> <135634.1659139371@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:08:02 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <139503.1659140555.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:22:35 -0400 Message-ID: <139504.1659140555@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > Here's a patch that uses a variant of that approach: it just runs > safe_psql straight up and gets the output, then writes it out to temp > files if the output doesn't match and we need to run diff. Let me know > what you think of this. That looks good to me, although obviously I don't know for sure if it will make wrasse happy. > While working on this, I noticed a few other problems. One is that the > query doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, which it really should, or the > output won't be stable. And the other is that I think we should be > testing against the regression database, not the postgres database, > because it's got a bunch of user tables in it, not just > pg_largeobject. Both of those sound like "d'oh" observations to me. +1 regards, tom lane