On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 07:32:10PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:21:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> >>> address the points I made about reproducing the previous state in cases > >> >>> where the admin removed the language or changed its permissions. > >> > >> >> Well, it still does the create extension in binary mode like before --- > >> >> not sure what the problem is. > >> > >> > Applied and back-patched to 9.2. > >> > >> I do not believe that this patch fixes the problem, and I also believe > >> that it creates new problems. Please revert. > > > > I asked for an explaination of the problem, but received no reply: > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-07/msg00005.php > > > > so I assumed you were fine with it. Please explain. Does anyone else > > understand the problem Tom is seeing? > > Well, the part I understood was that your fix apparently does not > guarantee to restore plpgsql to the state it was in, just to restore > it to existence. But previous complaints about similar issues have > fallen on deaf ears (see bug #5184). Perhaps Tom has had a change of > heart, but if so we have a few things to fix, not just this one.
Yes, I think my fix gives binary-upgrade the same behavior as pg_dump/restore --- for all its good and bad. I couldn't see why they should be different, or at least why binary-upgrade should be worse (throw an error). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
