Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBLR7rJAo5Ki9uw=XJnefJU7jRaAYSAaQYLPfK2rDQC6A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


pá 17. 6. 2022 v 15:07 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> napsal:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > Also, I'd be inclined to reject system-provided objects by checking
> > for OID >= 16384 rather than hard-wiring assumptions about things
> > being in pg_catalog or not.
>
> To me, oid>=16384 seems more hard-wired than namespace!='pg_catalog'.

Extensions can be installed into pg_catalog, but they can't get
low-numbered OIDs.

yes

Unfortunately, I  did it in Orafce

Regards

Pavel


--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate