> On 26 May 2017, at 17:08, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >> While hacking on pg_upgrade in downstream Greenplum I ran into an error which >> seems like an old, and obscure, bug in pg_dump (unrelated to pg_upgrade). >> pg_dump generates incorrect SQL for an operator class which has no operators >> or >> procedures, and which has the same column and storage types. > > Good catch. > >> The attached patch adds a belts-and-suspenders check in dumpOpclass() which >> appends the STORAGE clause in case nothing had been added. > > Seems reasonable (the comment could use some wordsmithing maybe) ... > >> ... The DROP in >> alter_generic is also removed to exercise the code path, being able to >> pg_upgrade what is executed in regression seem like a good idea. > > ... but that's a nonstarter. We can't have the regression tests leaving > global objects (users) lying around.
Fair enough, > I'll commit and back-patch this without a test case. Possibly Frost will > be excited enough about it to add something to the pg_dump TAP tests, > but those tests are too opaque for me to want to do so. Thanks! cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
