Re: reg* checks in pg_upgrade are out of date - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: reg* checks in pg_upgrade are out of date |
Date | |
Msg-id | 037e152a-cb25-3bcb-4f35-bdc9988f8204@2ndQuadrant.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | reg* checks in pg_upgrade are out of date (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Responses |
Re: reg* checks in pg_upgrade are out of date
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/21/18 7:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > It seems the list of reg* types and the check for them in pg_upgrade > have gone out of sync. We have the following reg* types: > > SELECT typname FROM pg_type WHERE typname LIKE 'reg%' order by typname; > ┌───────────────┐ > │ typname │ > ├───────────────┤ > │ regclass │ > │ regconfig │ > │ regdictionary │ > │ regnamespace │ > │ regoper │ > │ regoperator │ > │ regproc │ > │ regprocedure │ > │ regrole │ > │ regtype │ > └───────────────┘ > (10 rows) > > but pg_upgrade doesn't consider all of them: > > /* > * While several relkinds don't store any data, e.g. views, they can > * be used to define data types of other columns, so we check all > * relkinds. > */ > res = executeQueryOrDie(conn, > "SELECT n.nspname, c.relname, a.attname " > "FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c, " > " pg_catalog.pg_namespace n, " > " pg_catalog.pg_attribute a " > "WHERE c.oid = a.attrelid AND " > " NOT a.attisdropped AND " > " a.atttypid IN ( " > " 'pg_catalog.regproc'::pg_catalog.regtype, " > " 'pg_catalog.regprocedure'::pg_catalog.regtype, " > " 'pg_catalog.regoper'::pg_catalog.regtype, " > " 'pg_catalog.regoperator'::pg_catalog.regtype, " > /* regclass.oid is preserved, so 'regclass' is OK */ > /* regtype.oid is preserved, so 'regtype' is OK */ > " 'pg_catalog.regconfig'::pg_catalog.regtype, " > " 'pg_catalog.regdictionary'::pg_catalog.regtype) AND " > " c.relnamespace = n.oid AND " > " n.nspname NOT IN ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema')"); > > (I don't get the order here btw) > > ISTM when regrole and regnamespace were added, pg_upgrade wasn't > considered. It turns out that regrole is safe, because we preserve user > oids, but regnamespace isn't afaict. I don't think it's extremely > likely that users store such reg* columns in tables, but we probably > still should fix this. > yeah, I think you're right, both about the need to fix it and the unlikelihood of it occurring in the wild. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
pgsql-hackers by date: