* Stefan Kaltenbrunner (stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc) wrote:
> On 08/18/2013 05:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> >> While working on upgrading the database of the search system on
> >> postgresql.org to 9.2 I noticed that the dumps that pg_dump generates on
> >> that system are actually invalid and cannot be reloaded without being
> >> hacked on manually...
> >
> >> CREATE TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION pg (
> >> PARSER = pg_catalog."default" );
> >
> >> CREATE FUNCTION test() RETURNS INTEGER
> >> LANGUAGE sql SET default_text_search_config TO 'public.pg' AS $$
> >> SELECT 1;
> >> $$;
> >
> >> once you dump that you will end up with an invalid dump because the
> >> function will be dumped before the actual text search configuration is
> >> (re)created.
> >
> > I don't think it will work to try to fix this by reordering the dump;
> > it's too easy to imagine scenarios where that would lead to circular
> > ordering constraints. What seems like a more workable answer is for
> > CREATE FUNCTION to not attempt to validate SET clauses when
> > check_function_bodies is off, or at least not throw a hard error when
> > the validation fails. (I see for instance that if you try
> > ALTER ROLE joe SET default_text_search_config TO nonesuch;
> > you just get a notice and not an error.)
> >
> > However, I don't recall if there are any places where we assume the
> > SET info was pre-validated by CREATE/ALTER FUNCTION.
>
> any further insights into that issue? - seems a bit silly to have an
> open bug that actually prevents us from taking (restorable) backups of
> the search system on our own website...
It would seem that a simple solution would be to add an elevel argument
to ProcessGUCArray and then call it with NOTICE in the case that
check_function_bodies is true. None of the contrib modules call
ProcessGUCArray, but should we worry that some external module does?
This doesn't address Tom's concern that we may trust in the SET to
ensure that the value stored is valid. That seems like it'd be pretty
odd given how we typically handle GUCs, but I've not done a
comprehensive review to be sure.
Like Stefan, I'd really like to see this fixed, and sooner rather than
later, so we can continue the process of upgrading our systems to 9.2..
Thanks,
Stephen
