Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD
Date
Msg-id 53EC5F5D.6000904@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD  (Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>)
Responses Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD
Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD
Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD
Re: pg_dump bug in 9.4beta2 and HEAD
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/14/2014 06:53 AM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> I'm seeing an assertion failure with "pg_dump -c --if-exists" which is
> not ready to handle BLOBs it seems:
>
> pg_dump: pg_backup_archiver.c:472: RestoreArchive: Assertion `mark !=
> ((void *)0)' failed.
>
> To reproduce:
>
> $ createdb test
> $ pg_dump -c --if-exists test  (works, dumps empty database)
> $ psql test -c "select lo_create(1);"
> $ pg_dump -c --if-exists test  (fails, with the above mentioned assertion)

The code tries to inject an "IF EXISTS" into the already-construct DROP 
command, but it doesn't work for large objects, because the deletion 
command looks like "SELECT pg_catalog.lo_unlink(xxx)". There is no DROP 
there.

I believe we could use "SELECT pg_catalog.lo_unlink(loid) FROM 
pg_catalog.pg_largeobject_metadata WHERE loid = xxx". 
pg_largeobject_metadata table didn't exist before version 9.0, but we 
don't guarantee pg_dump's output to be compatible in that direction 
anyway, so I think that's fine.

The quick fix would be to add an exception for blobs, close to where 
Assert is. There are a few exceptions there already. A cleaner solution 
would be to add a new argument to ArchiveEntry and make the callers 
responsible for providing an "DROP IF EXISTS" query, but that's not too 
appetizing because for most callers it would be boring boilerplate code. 
Perhaps add an argument, but if it's NULL, ArchiveEntry would form the 
if-exists query automatically from the DROP query.

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Improvement of versioning on Windows, take two
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.5: Memory-bounded HashAgg