On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hmm ... so there's a small problem with this idea of dropping and
> recreating template1:
>
> pg_restore: connecting to database for restore
> pg_restore: dropping DATABASE template1
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error while PROCESSING TOC:
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 3024; 1262 1 DATABASE template1
> postgres
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: cannot drop a templ
> ate database
> Command was: DROP DATABASE "template1";
>
> Now in principle we could hack around that by issuing "ALTER DATABASE
> ... IS_TEMPLATE false" first, but it turns out to be harder than you
> might think to wedge that into the pg_dump infrastructure. (The
> natural way to do it, trying to add this into the dropCmd for the
> database TOC entry, fails because (a) DROP DATABASE then ends up as
> one part of an implicit transaction block, and (b) it confuses the heck
> out of pg_restore's --if-exists kluge.)
>
> You can actually exhibit this in current releases if you try "pg_dump
> --clean --create" on a user-created template database, so it's not
> solely the fault of this patch.
>
> What do people think of just removing this DROP DATABASE restriction?
> Arguably, superusers should know better than to drop template1 anyway.
> Maybe we should replace it with a hard-wired check against dropping
> template0 (matched by name) just to stave off the worst-case scenario.
I think it's a little scary. The tail might be wagging the dog at this point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
