Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Doc: explain about dependency tracking for new-style SQL functions.

  2. Fix pg_dump's failure to honor dependencies of SQL functions.

  3. Fix misuse of pg_log_info() for details/hints.

  1. [BUG] pg_dump does not properly deal with BEGIN ATOMIC function

    Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-05-31T21:51:25Z

    Hi,

What appears to be a pg_dump/pg_restore bug was observed with the new
BEGIN ATOMIC function body syntax introduced in Postgres 14.

Dependencies inside a BEGIN ATOMIC function cannot be resolved
if those dependencies are dumped after the function body. The repro
case is when a primary key constraint is used in a ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT
used within the function.

With the attached repro, pg_restore fails with

pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR:  constraint "a_pkey" for table "a" does not exist
Command was: CREATE FUNCTION public.a_f(c1_in text, c2 integer DEFAULT 60) RETURNS void


I am not sure if the answer if to dump functions later on in the process.

Would appreciate some feedback on this issue.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-02T12:16:16Z

    "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> writes:
> With the attached repro, pg_restore fails with
> pg_restore: error: could not execute query: ERROR:  constraint "a_pkey" for table "a" does not exist
> Command was: CREATE FUNCTION public.a_f(c1_in text, c2 integer DEFAULT 60) RETURNS void

Hmph.  The other thing worth noticing is that pg_dump prints
a warning:

pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:

or with -v:

pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
pg_dump:   FUNCTION a_f  (ID 218 OID 40664)
pg_dump:   CONSTRAINT a_pkey  (ID 4131 OID 40663)
pg_dump:   POST-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 4281)
pg_dump:   TABLE DATA a  (ID 4278 OID 40657)
pg_dump:   PRE-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 4280)

So it's lacking a rule to tell it what to do in this case, and the
default is the wrong way around.  I think we need to fix it in
about the same way as the equivalent case for matviews, which
leads to the attached barely-tested patch.

BTW, now that I see a case the default printout here seems
completely ridiculous.  I think we need to do

    pg_log_warning("could not resolve dependency loop among these items:");
    for (i = 0; i < nLoop; i++)
    {
        char        buf[1024];

        describeDumpableObject(loop[i], buf, sizeof(buf));
-       pg_log_info("  %s", buf);
+       pg_log_warning("  %s", buf);
    }

but I didn't actually change that in the attached.

			regards, tom lane

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

    Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> — 2023-06-02T15:08:08Z

    On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> or with -v:
>
> pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
> pg_dump:   FUNCTION a_f  (ID 218 OID 40664)
> pg_dump:   CONSTRAINT a_pkey  (ID 4131 OID 40663)
> pg_dump:   POST-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 4281)
> pg_dump:   TABLE DATA a  (ID 4278 OID 40657)
> pg_dump:   PRE-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 4280)
>
> ...
> BTW, now that I see a case the default printout here seems
> completely ridiculous.  I think we need to do
>
>     pg_log_warning("could not resolve dependency loop among these items:");
>     for (i = 0; i < nLoop; i++)
>     {
>         char        buf[1024];
>
>         describeDumpableObject(loop[i], buf, sizeof(buf));
> -       pg_log_info("  %s", buf);
> +       pg_log_warning("  %s", buf);
>     }
>

-1
  Not that I matter, but as a "consumer" the current output tells me:
- You have a Warning...
+ Here are the supporting details (visually, very clearly)

  If I comprehend the suggestion, it will label each line with a warning.
Which implies I have 6 Warnings.
It feels "off" to do it that way, especially since the only way we get the
additional details is with "-v"?

Kirk...

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

    Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-06-02T21:26:50Z

    > So it's lacking a rule to tell it what to do in this case, and the
> default is the wrong way around. I think we need to fix it in
> about the same way as the equivalent case for matviews, which
> leads to the attached barely-tested patch.

Thanks for the patch! A test on the initially reported use case
and some other cases show it does the expected.

Some minor comments I have:

1/

+ agginfo[i].aggfn.postponed_def = false;	/* might get set during sort */

This is probably not needed as it seems that we can only
get into this situation when function dependencies are tracked.
This is either the argument or results types of a function which
are already handled correctly, or when the function body is examined
as is the case with BEGIN ATOMIC.


2/

Instead of

+ * section.  This is sufficient to handle cases where a function depends on
+ * some unique index, as can happen if it has a GROUP BY for example.
+ */

The following description makes more sense. 

+ * section.  This is sufficient to handle cases where a function depends on
+ * some constraints, as can happen if a BEGIN ATOMIC function 
+ * references a constraint directly.


3/

The docs in https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-depend.html
should be updated. The entire section after "For user-defined functions.... "
there is no mention of BEGIN ATOMIC as one way that the function body
can be examined for dependencies.

This could be tracked in a separate doc update patch. What do you think?


> BTW, now that I see a case the default printout here seems
> completely ridiculous. I think we need to do


> describeDumpableObject(loop[i], buf, sizeof(buf));
> - pg_log_info(" %s", buf);
> + pg_log_warning(" %s", buf);
> }

Not sure I like this more than what is there now.

The current indentation in " pg_dump:   " makes it obvious 
that these lines are details for the warning message. Additional
"warning" messages will be confusing.


Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-03T18:28:11Z

    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

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

    Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> — 2023-06-04T03:10:19Z

    On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >   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?
>

Honestly the double space in front of the strings with either the Original
version,
or the "detail:" version is great.

While I get the "Less Cluttered" version.. It "detaches" it a bit too much
from the lead in, for me.

Kirk...

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

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-04T17:36:08Z

    "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> writes:
> Some minor comments I have:

> 1/

> + agginfo[i].aggfn.postponed_def = false;	/* might get set during sort */

> This is probably not needed as it seems that we can only
> get into this situation when function dependencies are tracked.

That's just to keep from leaving an undefined field in the
DumpableObject struct.  You are very likely right that nothing
would examine that field today, but that seems like a poor
excuse for not initializing it.

> 2/

> The following description makes more sense. 

> + * section.  This is sufficient to handle cases where a function depends on
> + * some constraints, as can happen if a BEGIN ATOMIC function 
> + * references a constraint directly.

I did not think this was an improvement.  For one thing, I doubt
that BEGIN ATOMIC is essential to cause the problem.  I didn't
prove the point by making a test case, but a "RETURN expression"
function could probably trip over it too by putting a sub-SELECT
with GROUP BY into the expression.  Also, your wording promises
more about what cases we can handle than I think is justified.

> 3/

> The docs in https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-depend.html
> should be updated.

Right.  In general, I thought that the new-style-SQL-functions patch
was very slipshod about updating the docs, and omitted touching
many places where it would be appropriate to mention the new style,
or even flat-out replace examples with new syntax.  I did something
about this particular point, but perhaps someone would like to look
around and work on that topic?

			regards, tom lane

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

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-04T17:41:51Z

    Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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?

> Honestly the double space in front of the strings with either the Original
> version,
> or the "detail:" version is great.
> While I get the "Less Cluttered" version.. It "detaches" it a bit too much
> from the lead in, for me.

Done with pg_log_warning_detail.  I ended up taking out the two spaces,
as that still felt like a modularity violation.  Also, although the
extra space looks alright in English, I'm less sure about how it'd
look in another language where "warning:" and "detail:" get translated
to strings of other lengths.  So the new output (before 016107478
fixed it) is

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)

			regards, tom lane

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T11:58:20Z

    Thanks to Imseih and Sami at AWS for reporting this. The original case
comes from an upgrade I've been trying to complete for a couple of months
now, since RDS started supporting 15 with a 15.2 release.

The process has been slow and painful because, originally, there was a bug
on the RDS side that stopped any of the upgrade logs from appearing in RDS
or CloudWatch. Now, minimal log errors are shown, but not much detail.

I think that BEGIN ATOMIC is the sleeper feature of Postgres 14. It is
a *fantastic
*addition to the dependency-tracking system. However, it does not seem to
work.

I just found this thread now looking for the string warning: could not
resolve dependency loop among these items. I got that far by setting up a
new database, and a simple test case that reproduces the problem. I called
the test database ba for Begin Atomic:

------------------------------------
-- New database
------------------------------------
CREATE DATABASE ba;

------------------------------------
-- Connect
------------------------------------
-- Connect to new database...

------------------------------------
-- Setup schemas
------------------------------------
CREATE SCHEMA data; -- I don't have public running, so create a schema.

-- All of my UPSERT view and function plumbing is tucked away here:
CREATE SCHEMA types_plus;

------------------------------------
-- Define table
------------------------------------
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS data.test_event;

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS data.test_event (
    id        uuid          NOT NULL DEFAULT NULL PRIMARY KEY,

    ts_dts    timestamp     NOT NULL DEFAULT 'epoch',

    who       text          NOT NULL DEFAULT NULL,
    what      text          NOT NULL DEFAULT NULL
);

-- PK is created by default as test_event_pkey, used in ON CONFLICT later.

------------------------------------
-- Create view, get type for free
------------------------------------
CREATE VIEW types_plus.test_event_v1 AS

SELECT
       id,
       ts_dts,
       who,
       what

  FROM data.test_event;

-- Create a function to accept an array of rows formatted as test_event_v1
for UPSERT into test_event.
DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS types_plus.insert_test_event_v1
(types_plus.test_event_v1[]);

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION types_plus.insert_test_event_v1 (data_in
types_plus.test_event_v1[])

RETURNS void

LANGUAGE SQL

BEGIN ATOMIC

INSERT INTO data.test_event (
  id,
  ts_dts,
  who,
  what)

SELECT
  rows_in.id,
  rows_in.ts_dts,
  rows_in.who,
  rows_in.what

FROM unnest(data_in) as rows_in

ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT test_event_pkey DO UPDATE SET
  id         = EXCLUDED.id,
  ts_dts     = EXCLUDED.ts_dts,
  who        = EXCLUDED.who,
  what       = EXCLUDED.what;

END;

I've tested pg_dump with the plain, custom, directory, and tar options. All
report the same problem:


Note that I'm using Postgres and pg_dump 14.8 locally, RDS is still at 14.7
of Postgres and presumably 14.7 of pg_dump*. *

pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items:
pg_dump:   FUNCTION insert_test_event_v1  (ID 224 OID 1061258)
pg_dump:   CONSTRAINT test_event_pkey  (ID 3441 OID 1061253)
pg_dump:   POST-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3584)
pg_dump:   TABLE DATA test_event  (ID 3582 OID 1061246)
pg_dump:   PRE-DATA BOUNDARY  (ID 3583)


Hunting around earlier, I found a thread here from 2020 that mentioned
that BEGIN
ATOMIC was going to make dependency resolution tougher for pg_dump. Makes
sense, it can become circular or ambiguous in a hurry. However, in my case,
I don't see that the dependencies are any kind of crazy spaghetti. I have
hundreds of tables with the same pattern of dependencies for UPSERT work:

1. CREATE TABLE foo
2. CREATE PK foo_pk and other constraints.
3. CREATE VIEW foo_v1  (I could use CREATE TYPE here, for my purposes, but
prefer CREATE VIEW.)
4. CREATE FUNCTION insert_foo_v1 (foo_v1[])

>
The example I listed earlier is a simplified version of this. I didn't even
check that the new database works, that's not important....I am only trying
to check out pg_dump/pg_restore.

Can anyone suggest a path forward for me with the upgrade to PG 15? I'm
waiting on that as we need to use MERGE and I'd like other PG 15
improvements, like the sort optimizations. As far as I can see it, my best
bet is to

1. Delete all of my routines with BEGIN ATOMIC. That's roughly 250 routines.
2. Upgrade.
3. Add back in the routines in PG 15.

That likely would work for me as my dependencies are shallow and not
circular. They simply require a specific order. I avoid chaining views of
views and functions off functions as a deliberate practice in Postgres.

Down the track, does my sort of dependency problem seem resolvable by
pg_dump? I've got my own build-the-system-from-scratch system that use for
local testing out of the source files, and I had to resort to hinting files
to inject some things in the correct order. So, I'm not assuming that it
*is* possible for pg_dump to resolve all sequences. Then again, all of this
could go away if DDL dependency checking were deferrable. But, I'm just a
Postgres user, not a C-coder.

Thanks for looking at this bug, thanks again for the AWS staff for posting
it, and thanks for any suggestions on my day-to-day problem of upgrading.

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T12:13:16Z

    Edit error above, I said that dependency tracking "does not seem to work."
Not what I mean, it works great...It just does not seem to work for me with
any of the upgrade options.

>

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

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-05T13:01:25Z

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> writes:
> Can anyone suggest a path forward for me with the upgrade to PG 15?

Apply this patch:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=ca9e79274938d8ede07d9990c2f6f5107553b524

or more likely, pester RDS to do so sooner than the next quarterly
releases.

			regards, tom lane

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T13:21:55Z

    Well *that *was quick. Thank you!

Imseih, Sami what are the chances of getting RDS to apply this patch?
Postgres 15 was released nearly 8 months ago, and it would be great to get
onto it.

Thanks

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 3:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> writes:
> > Can anyone suggest a path forward for me with the upgrade to PG 15?
>
> Apply this patch:
>
>
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=ca9e79274938d8ede07d9990c2f6f5107553b524
>
> or more likely, pester RDS to do so sooner than the next quarterly
> releases.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

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

    Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T15:18:54Z

    On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
> .. to strings of other lengths.  So the new output (before 016107478
> fixed it) is
>
> 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)
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
+1

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T16:03:46Z

    Another suggestion for AWS/RDS: Expose *all of the logs in the upgrade tool
chain*. If I'd had all of the logs at the start of this, I'd have been able
to track down the issue myself quite quickly. Setting up that simple case
database took me less than an hour today. Without the logs, it's been
impossible (until the RDS patch a month ago) and difficult (now) to get a
sense of what's happening.

Thank you

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:19 PM Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
>> .. to strings of other lengths.  So the new output (before 016107478
>> fixed it) is
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>                         regards, tom lane
>>
> +1
>

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-05T16:20:34Z

    Reminds me to say a *big* *thank you* to everyone involved in and
contributing to Postgres development for making error messages which are so
good. For a programmer, error text is a primary UI. Most Postgres errors
and log messages are clear and sufficient. Even when they're a bit obscure,
they alway seem to be *on topic*, and enough to get you on the right
track.I assume that we've all used programs and operating systems that emit
more....runic...errors.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:03 PM Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Another suggestion for AWS/RDS: Expose *all of the logs in the upgrade
> tool chain*. If I'd had all of the logs at the start of this, I'd have
> been able to track down the issue myself quite quickly. Setting up that
> simple case database took me less than an hour today. Without the logs,
> it's been impossible (until the RDS patch a month ago) and difficult (now)
> to get a sense of what's happening.
>
> Thank you
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:19 PM Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
>>> .. to strings of other lengths.  So the new output (before 016107478
>>> fixed it) is
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>                         regards, tom lane
>>>
>> +1
>>
>

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

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2023-06-13T10:27:56Z

    On 2023-Jun-13, Morris de Oryx wrote:

> Quick follow-up: I've heard back from AWS regarding applying Tom Lane's
> patch. Nope. RDS releases numbered versions, nothing else.

Sounds like a reasonable policy to me.

> As Postgres is now at 15.8/15.3 in the wild and on 15.7/15.3 on RDS,
> I'm guessing that the patch won't be available until 14.9/15.4.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that this patch will be integrated into 14.9/15.4,

Yes.  The commits got into Postgres on June 4th, and 14.8 and 15.3 where
stamped on May 8th.  So the fixes will be in 14.9 and 15.4 in August,
per https://www.postgresql.org/developer/roadmap/

> if they are released?

No "if" about this, unless everybody here is hit by ICBMs.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-13T18:09:49Z

    Quick follow-up: I've heard back from AWS regarding applying Tom Lane's
patch. Nope. RDS releases numbered versions, nothing else. As Postgres is
now at 15.8/15.3 in the wild and on 15.7/15.3 on RDS, I'm guessing that the
patch won't be available until 14.9/15.4.

Am I right in thinking that this patch will be integrated into 14.9/15.4,
if they are released?

Thank you

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:20 PM Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Reminds me to say a *big* *thank you* to everyone involved in and
> contributing to Postgres development for making error messages which are so
> good. For a programmer, error text is a primary UI. Most Postgres errors
> and log messages are clear and sufficient. Even when they're a bit obscure,
> they alway seem to be *on topic*, and enough to get you on the right
> track.I assume that we've all used programs and operating systems that emit
> more....runic...errors.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:03 PM Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Another suggestion for AWS/RDS: Expose *all of the logs in the upgrade
>> tool chain*. If I'd had all of the logs at the start of this, I'd have
>> been able to track down the issue myself quite quickly. Setting up that
>> simple case database took me less than an hour today. Without the logs,
>> it's been impossible (until the RDS patch a month ago) and difficult (now)
>> to get a sense of what's happening.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:19 PM Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> .. to strings of other lengths.  So the new output (before 016107478
>>>> fixed it) is
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>>                         regards, tom lane
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>

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

    Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx@gmail.com> — 2023-06-13T19:15:44Z

    Thanks or the confirmation, and here's hoping no ICBMs!