On 11/22/18 4:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-11-21 23:32:07 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 11/21/18 7:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Could you check whether you
>>> still encounter the issue after applying the attached fix?
>>>
>>
>> This has largely fixed the problem, so I think this should be applied.
> Cool, will do so tomorrow or such. Thanks for testing.
>
>
>> With some adjustments to the tests to remove problematic cases (e.g.
>> postgres_fdw's ft_pg_type) the tests pass. The exception is
>> HEAD->HEAD. The change is that the LOs are not dumped in the same
>> order pre and post upgrade. I can change the tests to allow for a
>> greater fuzz factor - generally when the source and target are the
>> same we don't allow any fuzz. Or if we care we could do a better job
>> of dumping LOs in a consistent order.
> So you'd want to dump large objects in oid order or such? Probably
> comparatively not a huge overhead, but also not nothing? We don't really
> force ordering in other places in pg_dump afaik.
>
Well, all other data is dumped in a consistent order, and the tests rely
on this. If we don't care about that for LOs I can accommodate it. I
don't have a terribly strong opinion about the desirability of making
LOs keep the same behaviour.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
