>> 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).
I agree that they shouldn't be different, but if this can't be made to work, perhaps both should fail in this situation? Changing ownership of objects on a dump/restore seems like a decidedly un-Postgres-like foot-gun. Granted, this is only applicable in only a small set of situations, but it's still a foot-gun--a metadata integrity issue if you will. For what it's worth, I completely agree with Robert's comments in the thread regarding #5184 [1]. Does the comparison to template0/1 suggested in that thread merit further consideration? [1]: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-11/msg00113.php -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
