Horton

Re: Test instability when pg_dump orders by OID

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-08-20T17:21:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rewrite previous commit's test for TestUpgradeXversion compatibility.

  2. Sort DO_DEFAULT_ACL dump objects independent of OIDs.

  3. Remove, from stable branches, the new assertion of no pg_dump OID sort.

  4. Sort dump objects independent of OIDs, for the 7 holdout object types.

  5. pg_dump: provide a stable sort order for rules.

  6. pg_dump: include comments on not-null constraints on domains, too

  7. Verify roundtrip dump/restore of regression database

  8. In pg_dump, use simplehash.h to look up dumpable objects by OID.

  9. Tweak pg_dumpall to add GRANT CONNECT ON DATABASE ... TO PUBLIC when dumping

  10. Restructure operator classes to allow improved handling of cross-data-type

  11. First phase of project to use fixed OIDs for all system catalogs and

  12. Tweak pg_dump to say GRANT ALL when appropriate, rather than enumerating

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:11:15AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 21:37, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > Thanks.  Given the current state of freeze for tomorrow's release wrap, the
> > decision is less obvious than usual.  I'm seeing these options:
> >
> > 1. Remove the new assertion in v13-v18.
> > 2. Push your proposed fix.
> > 3. Change nothing.  (This would be the choice if one is maximally concerned
> >    about deviating from the freeze and unconcerned about --enable-cassert
> >    builds of releases.)
> >
> > I am inclined to make today's change be (1).  A fresh audit of catalog PRIMARY
> > KEY and UNIQUE constraints didn't find any more missed cases, but (1) still
> > feels like the right level of cautiousness.  If there are no objections in the
> > next 3hr, I'll proceed with (1).
> 
> Hi! I can see we have option (1)  (28e7252 etc). Can we now move
> forward with option (2) for HEAD?

Yep.  It's in my queue.