Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> To me, adding a separate TOC entry for a thing that is not really a
> separate object seems like a scary hack that might come back to bite
> us. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about pg_dump to say exactly
> how it might come back to bite us, which leaves wide open the
> possibility that I am completely wrong.... I just think it's the
> intention that archive entries correspond to actual objects in the
> database, not commands that we want executed in some particular order.
I agree, this seems like a moderately bad idea. It could get broken
either by executing only one of the TOC entries during restore, or
by executing them in the wrong order. The latter possibility could
be forestalled by adding a dependency, which I do not see this hunk
doing, which is clearly a bug. The former possibility would require
user intervention, so maybe it's in the category of "if you break
this you get to keep both pieces". Still, it's ugly.
> If that criticism is indeed correct, then my proposal would be to
> instead add a WITH OID = nnn option to CREATE DATABASE and allow it to
> be used only in binary upgrade mode.
If it's not too complicated to implement, that seems like an OK idea
from here. I don't have any great love for the way we handle OID
preservation in binary upgrade mode, so not doing it exactly the same
way for databases doesn't seem like a disadvantage.
regards, tom lane
