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@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges
In-reply-to: <124042D9-F307-402A-80ED-395C154858BA@yesql.se>
References: <31473.1573412838@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <124042D9-F307-402A-80ED-395C154858BA@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:01:21 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4649.1573419943.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:05:43 -0500
Message-ID: <4650.1573419943@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Although this is a really straightforward patch and I've tested it
>> against appropriate old versions (9.1 and 9.2), I'm very hesitant
>> to shove it in so soon before a release wrap.  Should I do that, or
>> let it wait till after the wrap?

> Having read the patch I agree that it's trivial enough that I wouldn't b=
e
> worried to let it slip through.  However, given that we've lacked the ch=
eck for
> a few releases, is it worth rushing with the potential for a last-minute
> "oh-shit"?

Probably not, really --- the main argument for that is just that it'd fit
well with the fixes Tomas already made.

>> +		/* arrays over any type selected so far */
>> +						  "			SELECT t.oid FROM pg_catalog.pg_type t, x WHERE typelem =3D=
 x.oid AND typtype =3D 'b' "

> No need to check typlen?

Yeah, that's intentional.  A fixed-length array type over a problematic
type would be just as much of a problem as a varlena array type.
The case shouldn't apply to any of the existing problematic types,
but I was striving for generality.

			regards, tom lane