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

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Date
Msg-id 20220622235845.GV22452@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:14:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.)

Actually, 16384 is already used in two other places in check.c, so ...
done like that for consistency.
Also fixes parenthesis, typos, and renames vars.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Make COPY extendable in order to support Parquet and other formats
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Missing reference to pgstat_replslot.c in pgstat.c