Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:14 AM PG Bug reporting form <
> noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> I have an extension which contains an event trigger. As expected, CREATE
>> EXTENSION adds a pg_depend entry between the trigger and the extension. But
>> after running pg_upgrade, this pg_depend entry is gone (and the extension's
>> CREATE EVENT TRIGGER statement now shows up in the pg_dump output, causing
>> the restore to fail with an "event trigger already exists" error).
>> Did I miss something, or is this a bug?
> Yes, I feel it is a bug.
Undoubtedly. I haven't checked your fix in detail yet but it looks
plausible.
I poked around to see if there were any other missing moving parts in
extension membership support. Mostly we seem to be OK ... but I found out
that CreateUserMapping contains a recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension
call, even though there is no support in the grammar for
ALTER EXTENSION ADD/DROP USER MAPPING, nor does pg_dump check for
extension membership when dumping a user mapping. (So if someone did
do a CREATE USER MAPPING in an extension, the membership would be recorded
but then silently lost during pg_upgrade, just as with this bug.)
I'm inclined to think that not supporting that is the correct thing:
if we don't allow roles to be extension members, then user mappings
for roles shouldn't be either. Unless someone can come up with a
convincing use-case for that, I think we should remove the
recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension call from CreateUserMapping.
> Do we need to support the same for trigger also?
No. Whole tables can be extension members, not properties of tables.
regards, tom lane
