Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes: > Is there an inherent technical or policy reason for pg_upgrade not to > preserve comments on predefined roles (or on predefined objects generally)?
I think this is absolutely out of scope for pg_dump. We generally expect that system objects' properties are not dumped, because they might be different in a newer version, and overwriting the system definition with a possibly-obsolete version would be a bad thing. You could quibble about comments being a different matter, but I don't buy it. Also, our one venture into this space (allowing custom modifications of system-object privileges to be propagated by pg_dump) has IMV been an unmitigated disaster. Years later, it *still* has unresolved bugs and definitional issues. So I'm going to run away screaming from any proposal to do likewise for other object properties. > For that matter, would it be objectionable for the predefined roles to > come with comments right out of the box? That, however, seems reasonable enough. We deliver built-in functions and operators with comments, so why not roles? > Another objection might be that they'd presumably be subject to translation, > and would need some way for initdb to install the proper localized versions. We've not worried about that for functions/operators. > I've appended the comments we use for them at $work, anyway. IMO these would have to be shortened quite a bit to be friendly for "\du+" displays. I'm not against the concept though. regards, tom lane