Hi Michael,
2016-08-23 5:02 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Martín Marqués <martin@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I believe the fix will be simple after the back and forth mails with
>> Michael, Stephen and Tom. I will work on that later, but preferred to
>> have the tests the show the problem which will also make testing the fix
>> easier.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> It seems to me that we are going to need a bit more coverage for more
> object types depending on the code paths that are being changed. For
> example, sequences or functions should be checked for as well, and not
> only tables. By the way, do you need help to build a patch or should I
> jump in?
I wanted to test what I had in mind with one object, and then see if
any replication is needed for other objects.
I was struggling the last days as what I was reading in my patched
pg_dump.c had to work as expected, and dump the tables not created by
the test_pg_dump extension but inside the schema
regress_pg_dump_schema.
Today I decided to go over the test I wrote, and found a bug there,
reason why I couldn't get a successful make check.
Here go 2 patches. One is a fix for the test I sent earlier. The other
is the proposed idea Tom had using the dump_contains that Stephan
committed on 9.6.
So far I've checked that it fixes the dumpable for Tables, but I think
it should work for all other objects as well, as all this patch does
is leave execution of checkExtensionMembership at the end of
selectDumpableNamespace, leaving the dump_contains untouched.
Checks pass ok.
I will add tests for sequence and functions as you mention and test again.
Then I'll check if other tests should be added as well.
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
