Re: more ALTER .. DEPENDS ON EXTENSION fixes

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:45 PM Ahsan Hadi <ahsan.hadi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:38 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-Feb-28, ahsan hadi wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Tested the pg_dump patch for dumping "ALTER .. DEPENDS ON EXTENSION" in
>> case of indexes, functions, triggers etc. The "ALTER .. DEPENDS ON
>> EXTENSION" is included in the dump. However in some case not sure why
>> "ALTER INDEX.....DEPENDS ON EXTENSION" is repeated several times in the
>> dump?
>>
>> Hi, thanks for testing.
>>
>> Are the repeated commands for the same index, same extension?
>
>
> Yes same index and same extension...
>

You cannot do that after applying all the patches.


>
>
>>   Did you
>> apply the same command multiple times before running pg_dump?
>>
>
> Yes but in some cases I applied the command once and it appeared multiple
> times in the dump..
>

Not for me, it works for me.


>
>
>>
>> There was an off-list complaint that if you repeat the ALTER .. DEPENDS
>> for the same object on the same extension, then the same dependency is
>> registered multiple times.  (You can search pg_depend for "deptype = 'x'"
>> to see that).  I suppose that would lead to the line being output
>> multiple times by pg_dump, also.  Is that what you did?
>>
>
> I checked out pg_depend for "deptype='x'" the same dependency is
> registered multiple times...
>
>>
>> If so: Patch 0002 is supposed to fix that problem, by raising an error
>> if the dependency is already registered ... though it occurs to me now
>> that it would be more in line with custom to make the command a silent
>> no-op.  In fact, doing that would cause old dumps (generated with
>> databases containing duplicated entries) to correctly restore a single
>> entry, without error.  Therefore my inclination now is to change 0002
>> that way and push and backpatch it ahead of 0001.
>>
>
> Makes sense, will also try our Patch 0002.
>
>>
>> I realize just now that I have failed to verify what happens with
>> partitioned indexes.
>>
>
> Yes I also missed this one..
>

It works for partitioned indexes.


Is this intentional that there is no error when removing a non-existing
dependency?