On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 07:32:10PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:21:58AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> >>> address the points I made about reproducing the previous state in cases
> >> >>> where the admin removed the language or changed its permissions.
> >>
> >> >> Well, it still does the create extension in binary mode like before ---
> >> >> not sure what the problem is.
> >>
> >> > Applied and back-patched to 9.2.
> >>
> >> I do not believe that this patch fixes the problem, and I also believe
> >> that it creates new problems. Please revert.
> >
> > I asked for an explaination of the problem, but received no reply:
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2012-07/msg00005.php
> >
> > so I assumed you were fine with it. Please explain. Does anyone else
> > understand the problem Tom is seeing?
>
> Well, the part I understood was that your fix apparently does not
> guarantee to restore plpgsql to the state it was in, just to restore
> it to existence. But previous complaints about similar issues have
> fallen on deaf ears (see bug #5184). Perhaps Tom has had a change of
> heart, but if so we have a few things to fix, not just this one.
Yes, I think my fix gives binary-upgrade the same behavior as
pg_dump/restore --- for all its good and bad. I couldn't see why they
should be different, or at least why binary-upgrade should be worse
(throw an error).
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
