On Jan6, 2011, at 04:13 , Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> I think pg_dumpall would have failed with this setup too, so I don't see >>> this as a pg_upgrade bug, nor something that I am willing to risk adding >>> to pg_upgrade. >> >> If adding RESET SESSION AUTHORIZATION fixes the bug, I think we should >> consider doing that. > > If we add every fix that could conceivably break a pg_dumpall restore, > pg_upgrade will be less stable than it is now. I don't see why adding > this should be any different.
The issue is more complicted. In my situation, it's not the pg_dumpall restore that's failing, but rather pg_upgrade's attempt to install the support functions necessary for the upgrade. But in principle, you're right I think. pg_dumpall *would* fail if my database contained any objects that required superuser privileges to create, like C-language functions. > If you want to argue that pg_dumpall should be doing it, that is a > separate issue and not related to pg_upgrade. I think both need the fix. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
