On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-07-25 13:10:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Is this assumption, like, documented someplace? >> > >> > Uh, right there? >> >> I don't think we can expect end-users to read the code comments to >> determine whether their apparently-legal SQL is fully supported. > > I don't think plain end-users are going to create differently named PLs > using builtin handlers. There's plenty special casing of system object > in pg_dump and elsewhere. Dependency tracking doesn't quite work right > if you refer to system objects either, etc. This is superuser only > stuff, for a reason.
But superuser != developer. Superusers aren't obliged to read the code comments any more than any other user. I think the only reason we don't get people whining about stuff like this more than we do is that it's pretty obscure. But I bet if we look through the pgsql-bugs archives we can find people complaining about various cases where they did assorted seemingly-legal things that turned out not to be supported by pg_dump. Whether this particular thing has been discovered by anyone before, I dunno. But there's certainly a whole category of bug reports along the line of "pg_dump works mostly, except when I do X". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
