Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:45:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> >  On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I've pushed this with some cleanup --- aside from fixing
> >> outfuncs/readfuncs, I did some more work on the comments, which
> >> I think you were too sloppy about.
> 
> > Thanks a lot for the fixes.
> 
> It looks like we're not out of the woods on this: the buildfarm
> members that run cross-version-upgrade tests are all unhappy.
> Most of them are not reporting any useful details, but I suspect
> that they are barfing because dumps from the old server include
> table-qualified variable names in some CREATE VIEW commands while
> dumps from HEAD omit the qualifications.  I don't see any
> mechanism in TestUpgradeXversion.pm that could deal with that
> conveniently, and in any case we'd have to roll out a client
> script update to the affected animals.  I fear we may have to
> revert this pending development of better TestUpgradeXversion.pm
> support.

There's a diffs available for several of them:

- SELECT citext_table.id,
-    citext_table.name
+ SELECT id,
+    name

It looks like TestUpgradeXversion.pm is using the diff command I sent to
get tigher bounds on allowable changes.

20210415153722.GL6091@telsasoft.com

It's ugly and a terrible hack, and I don't know whether anyone would say
it's good enough, but one could can probably avoid the diff like:

sed -r '/CREATE/,/^$/{ s/\w+\.//g }'

You'd still have to wait for it to be deployed, though.

-- 
Justin