Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Do we have no composite types in the regression tests, or do we not > > store any in the database? Same the enums. > > > > > > Looks like the enum regression tests at least drop all their tables :-( > > > To allow pg_migrator to work, I would need to reserve the oids in > > pg_type, import the dump, and renumber the pg_type entries (and > > everything pointing to them) to the proper pg_type.oid. The big problem > > there is that I don't have access at the SQL level to set or change > > oids. I am afraid the oid remumbering is something we would have to do > > in the backend by walking through the pg_depend entries for the pg_type > > row. Yuck. > > Yeah. Maybe we need some special way of setting the oids explicitly. But > preventing a clash might be fairly difficult. > > Excluding every database that has a composite/array-of > user-defined-type/enum type would be pretty nasty. After all, these are > features we boast of.
Well, pg_migrator has gotten pretty far without supporting these features, and I think I would have heard about it if someone had these and migrated because vacuum analyze found it right away. I am afraid the best we can do is to throw an error when we see these cases and hope we can improve things for 8.5. As I understand it I have to look for the _use_ of these in user tables, not the existance of them in pg_type --- for example, there is certainly an array for every user type, but it might not be used by any user tables, and that would be OK. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers