Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-06-19 12:17:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The hard part here is how exactly are we going to represent the default
>> value.  AFAICS, the only thing that pg_dump could readily lay its hands
>> on is the "anyarray" textual representation of attmissingval, which maybe
>> is okay but it means more work for the support function.

> Isn't that just a few lines of code?

Not sure; I've not thought about how to code it.

> And if the default value bugs us,
> we can easily add a support function that dumps the value without the
> anyarray adornment?

The problem here is that that function does not exist in 11beta1.
Since adding the "incoming" function is certainly going to require
initdb, we have to be able to dump from the server as it now stands,
or we'll be cutting existing beta testers adrift.

            regards, tom lane