Re: ALTER TYPE DROP + composite-typed col vs. pg_upgrade
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TYPE DROP + composite-typed col vs. pg_upgrade |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4DD7AF3A.1070301@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | ALTER TYPE DROP + composite-typed col vs. pg_upgrade (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TYPE DROP + composite-typed col vs. pg_upgrade
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.04.2011 15:41, Noah Misch wrote: > Now that we have ALTER TYPE DROP ATTRIBUTE, pg_dump --binary-upgrade must, for > the sake of composite-typed columns, preserve the dropped-column configuration > of stand-alone composite types. Here's a test case: > > create type t as (x int, y int); > create table has_a (tcol t); > insert into has_a values ('(1,2)'); > table has_a; -- (1,2) > alter type t drop attribute y cascade, add attribute z int cascade; > table has_a; -- (1,) > table has_a; -- after pg_upgrade: (1,2) > > Apparently I did not fully test the last version after merging it with upstream > changes, because it did not work. Sorry for that. This version updates the > queries correctly and adds a test case. A regular "make check" passes the new > test case with or without the rest of this patch. However, a comparison of > regression database dumps before and after a pg_upgrade will reveal the problem > given this new test case. See, for example, Peter's recent patch to have the > contrib/pg_upgrade "make check" do this. Ok, committed. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: