Re: [BUG] pg_dump does not properly deal with BEGIN ATOMIC function

Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, now that I see a case the default printout here seems
>> completely ridiculous.  I think we need to do
>> -       pg_log_info("  %s", buf);
>> +       pg_log_warning("  %s", buf);

>   If I comprehend the suggestion, it will label each line with a warning.
> Which implies I have 6 Warnings.

Right, I'd forgotten that pg_log_warning() will interpose "warning:".
Attached are two more-carefully-thought-out suggestions.  The easy
way is to use pg_log_warning_detail(), which produces output like

pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
pg_dump: detail:   FUNCTION a_f  (ID 216 OID 40532)
pg_dump: detail:   CONSTRAINT a_pkey  (ID 3466 OID 40531)
pg_dump: detail:   POST-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3612)
pg_dump: detail:   TABLE DATA a  (ID 3610 OID 40525)
pg_dump: detail:   PRE-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3611)

Alternatively, we could assemble the details by hand, as in the
second patch, producing

pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
  FUNCTION a_f  (ID 216 OID 40532)
  CONSTRAINT a_pkey  (ID 3466 OID 40531)
  POST-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3612)
  TABLE DATA a  (ID 3610 OID 40525)
  PRE-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3611)

I'm not really sure which of these I like better.  The first one
is a much simpler code change, and there is some value in labeling
the output like that.  The second patch's output seems less cluttered,
but it's committing a modularity sin by embedding formatting knowledge
at the caller level.  Thoughts?

BTW, there is a similar abuse of pg_log_info just a few lines
above this, and probably others elsewhere.  I won't bother
writing patches for other places till we have agreement on what
the output ought to look like.

			regards, tom lane