Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Date
Msg-id 1216673.1655475253@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>> To me, oid>=16384 seems more hard-wired than namespace!='pg_catalog'.

> Extensions can be installed into pg_catalog, but they can't get
> low-numbered OIDs.

Exactly.  (To be clear, I had in mind writing something involving
FirstNormalObjectId, not that you should put literal "16384" in the
code.)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size