Re: Regression in COPY FROM caused by 9f8377f7a2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: Regression in COPY FROM caused by 9f8377f7a2
Date
Msg-id d675102099df9b66f97fc2f9fc627af1ecc69c80.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Regression in COPY FROM caused by 9f8377f7a2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Regression in COPY FROM caused by 9f8377f7a2
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2023-09-25 at 17:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > On 2023-09-25 Mo 11:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > On 2023-09-25 Mo 04:59, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > > CREATE TABLE boom (t character varying(5) DEFAULT 'a long string');
>
> > Thinking about this a little more, wouldn't it be better if we checked
> > at the time we set the default that the value is actually valid for the
> > given column? This is only one manifestation of a problem you could run
> > into given this table definition.
>
> I dunno, it seems at least possible that someone would do this
> deliberately as a means of preventing the column from being defaulted.
> In any case, the current behavior has stood for a very long time and
> no one has complained that an error should be thrown sooner.

Moreover, this makes restoring a pg_dump from v15 to v16 fail, which
should never happen.  This is how I got that bug report.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Invalidate the subscription worker in cases where a user loses their superuser status