Materialized View patch broke pg_dump

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

It looks like the recent matview patch broke pg_dump in a way, which make it
impossible to dump 9.1 and 9.2 databases.

it fails with

pg_dump: [Archivierer (DB)] query failed: ERROR:  function
pg_relation_is_scannable(oid) does not exist

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables() of pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Right.  Will fix.

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables() of pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Fixed.

Thanks for the report!

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 03/06/2013 10:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables() of pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Fixed.

Thanks for the report!

I noticed this morning that I am still getting failures on 9.0, 9.1 and
9.2 which cause my cross-version upgrade testing to fail for git tip.
For all I know this might apply to all back branches, but these are the
only ones tested for upgrade, so that's all I can report on reliably.

I'm chasing it up to find out exactly what's going on, but figured some
extra eyeballs would help.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 03/11/2013 10:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 03/06/2013 10:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables()
of pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Fixed.

Thanks for the report!

I noticed this morning that I am still getting failures on 9.0, 9.1
and 9.2 which cause my cross-version upgrade testing to fail for git
tip. For all I know this might apply to all back branches, but these
are the only ones tested for upgrade, so that's all I can report on
reliably.

I'm chasing it up to find out exactly what's going on, but figured
some extra eyeballs would help.

The problem is that pg_dump is sending an empty query in versions less
than 9.3, and choking on that. Suggested fix attached - there's really
no reason to be doing anything re mat views in versions < 9.3.

cheers

andrew

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/11/2013 10:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 03/06/2013 10:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables() of
pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Fixed.

Thanks for the report!

I noticed this morning that I am still getting failures on 9.0, 9.1 and
9.2 which cause my cross-version upgrade testing to fail for git tip. For
all I know this might apply to all back branches, but these are the only
ones tested for upgrade, so that's all I can report on reliably.

I'm chasing it up to find out exactly what's going on, but figured some
extra eyeballs would help.

The problem is that pg_dump is sending an empty query in versions less than
9.3, and choking on that. Suggested fix attached - there's really no reason
to be doing anything re mat views in versions < 9.3.

This is the same problem that I reported in another thread.
/messages/by-id/CAHGQGwH+4vtyq==L6HRuPxTggfqrnLf0mWj75BfisOske28gMA@mail.gmail.com

The patch looks good to me.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 03/11/2013 12:30 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/11/2013 10:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

On 03/06/2013 10:55 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:

Looking into this issue, it seems the version check in getTables() of
pg_dump.c
is wrong. Shouldn't the check be

if (fout->remoteVersion >= 90300)
{

}

since this is where pg_relation_is_scannable() is introduced?

Fixed.

Thanks for the report!

I noticed this morning that I am still getting failures on 9.0, 9.1 and
9.2 which cause my cross-version upgrade testing to fail for git tip. For
all I know this might apply to all back branches, but these are the only
ones tested for upgrade, so that's all I can report on reliably.

I'm chasing it up to find out exactly what's going on, but figured some
extra eyeballs would help.

The problem is that pg_dump is sending an empty query in versions less than
9.3, and choking on that. Suggested fix attached - there's really no reason
to be doing anything re mat views in versions < 9.3.

This is the same problem that I reported in another thread.
/messages/by-id/CAHGQGwH+4vtyq==L6HRuPxTggfqrnLf0mWj75BfisOske28gMA@mail.gmail.com

Oh, I missed that. Yes, either of these would work.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/11/2013 12:30 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/11/2013 10:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

I noticed this morning that I am still getting failures on
9.0, 9.1 and 9.2 which cause my cross-version upgrade testing
to fail for git tip. For
all I know this might apply to all back branches, but these
are the only ones tested for upgrade, so that's all I can
report on reliably.

I'm chasing it up to find out exactly what's going on, but
figured some extra eyeballs would help.

The problem is that pg_dump is sending an empty query in
versions less than 9.3, and choking on that. Suggested fix
attached - there's really no reason to be doing anything re mat
views in versions < 9.3. This is the same problem that I
reported in another thread.

/messages/by-id/CAHGQGwH+4vtyq==
L6HRuPxTggfqrnLf0mWj75BfisOske28gMA@mail.gmail.com

Oh, I missed that. Yes, either of these would work.

I've been out of town and not able to keep up here for a few days.
Will push a fix today unless I find that someone has beaten me to
it as I work through the rest of the messages.

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

On 03/11/2013 12:30 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

The problem is that pg_dump is sending an empty query in
versions less than 9.3, and choking on that. Suggested fix
attached - there's really no reason to be doing anything re mat
views in versions < 9.3.

This is the same problem that I reported in another thread.

/messages/by-id/CAHGQGwH+4vtyq==L6HRuPxTggfqrnLf0mWj75BfisOske28gMA@mail.gmail.com

Oh, I missed that. Yes, either of these would work.

Will push a fix today unless I find that someone has beaten me to
it as I work through the rest of the messages.

I agree that either would work.  I preferred Andrew's patch because
it kept knowledge of this issue more localized.

Pushed.  Thanks to you both, and apologies for the error.

Next time I do anything with pg_dump I will know better what
constitutes decent testing.

--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers