Re: Loading 7.4 dump to 8.1 with user-custom search_path - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Kings-Lynne
Subject Re: Loading 7.4 dump to 8.1 with user-custom search_path
Date
Msg-id 437D81FA.2070006@familyhealth.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Loading 7.4 dump to 8.1 with user-custom search_path breaks  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> decibel@fritz.2[23:08]~:90>grep search_path fritz-20051106.sql
> ALTER USER decibel SET search_path TO 'decibel, rrs, rrd, page_log, public';
> 
> Trying that command in psql...
> 
> decibel=# ALTER USER decibel SET search_path TO 'decibel, rrs, rrd,
> page_log, public';
> NOTICE:  schema "decibel, rrs, rrd, page_log, public" does not exist
> ALTER ROLE
> decibel=# \d
> No relations found.
> decibel=# show search_path;
>            search_path            
> ----------------------------------
>  "decibel, rrs, page_log, public"
> (1 row)
> 
> decibel=# 

Yes, that's all fixed in the 8.0 and higher pg_dump.  Use the 8.1 dump 
to dump your 7.4 database.

> Something else that struck me looking at some errors from this restore;
> would it be a good idea to come up with some kind of dedicated
> API/interface for dump to use so that it's not as vulnerable to these
> kind of issues?  For example, this dumpall has:
> 
> DELETE FROM pg_shadow WHERE usesysid <> (SELECT datdba FROM pg_database
> WHERE datname = 'template0');
> 
> before all the CREATE USER statements. Problem with that is:
> 
> psql:fritz-20051106.sql:11: ERROR:  cannot delete from a view
> 
> Granted, this could be handled by creating the needed rules on that
> view, but ISTM it would be better if instead we had a function like
> pg_delete_all_users that dump called instead. For most of the dump this
> isn't much of an issue, because it uses standard commands that we're
> really careful about not breaking backwards compatability on.

I believe this is all done in 8.1 pg_dump.

Chris



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Bug in predicate indexes?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving count(*)