On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 03:17:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >The PG_BINARY_W change has only been verified on a non-buildfarm
> >setup on my laptop (Mingw)
> >
> >Note that while it does look like there's a bug either in
> >pg_upgrade or pg_dumpall, it's probably mostly harmless (adding
> >some spurious CRs to function code bodies on Windows). I'd feel
> >happier if it didn't, and happier still if I knew for sure the
> >ultimate origin. Your pg_dumpall discovery above is interesting. I
> >might have time later on today to delve into all this. I'm out of
> >contact for the next few hours.
>
>
> OK, I now have a complete handle on what's going on here, and
> withdraw my earlier statement that I am confused on this issue :-)
>
> First, one lot of CRs is produced because the pg_upgrade test script
> calls pg_dumpall without -f and redirects that to a file, which
> Windows kindly opens on text mode. The solution to that is to change
> the test script to use pg_dumpall -f instead.
>
> The second lot of CRs (seen in the second dump file in the diff i
> previously sent) is produced by pg_upgrade writing its output in
> text mode, which turns LF into CRLF. The solution to that is the
> patch to dump.c I posted, which, as Bruce observed, does the same
> thing that pg_dumpall does. Arguably, it should also open the input
> file in binary, so that if there really is a CRLF in the dump it
> won't be eaten.
So, right now we are only add \r for function bodies, which is mostly
harmless, but what if a function body has strings with an embedded
newlines? What about creating a table with newlines in its identifiers:
CREATE TABLE "a
b" ("c
d" int);
If \r is added in there, it would be a data corruption problem. Can you
test that?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
