From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges
In-reply-to: <7062C2A2-BF72-41EC-A058-9A31F8AAC550@yesql.se>
References: <31473.1573412838@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <124042D9-F307-402A-80ED-395C154858BA@yesql.se>
 <4978.1573420358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <63DE9A1C-5F59-47AF-90C9-26A7EF9897B3@yesql.se>
 <12987.1573427177@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2798740.1619622555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <7062C2A2-BF72-41EC-A058-9A31F8AAC550@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Apr 2021 22:38:28 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <2940600.1619642871.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:47:51 -0400
Message-ID: <2940601.1619642871@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2940601.1619642871%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 28 Apr 2021, at 17:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> +		pg_fatal("Your installation contains system-defined composite type(s=
) in user tables.\n"
>> +				 "These type OIDs are not stable across PostgreSQL versions,\n"
>> +				 "so this cluster cannot currently be upgraded.  You can\n"
>> +				 "remove the problem tables and restart the upgrade.\n"
>> +				 "A list of the problem columns is in the file:\n"

> Would it be helpful to inform the user that they can alter/drop just the
> problematic columns as a potentially less scary alternative to dropping =
the
> entire table?

This wording is copied-and-pasted from the other similar tests.  I agree
that it's advocating a solution that might be overkill, but if we change
it we should also change the existing messages.  I don't mind doing
that in HEAD; less sure about the back branches, as (I think) these
are translatable strings.

Thoughts?

>> -		 * The type of interest might be wrapped in a domain, array,
>> +		 * The types of interest might be wrapped in a domain, array,

> Shouldn't this be "type(s)=E2=80=9D as in the other changes here?

Fair enough.

			regards, tom lane