On Mon, February 27, 2012 13:54, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 02/27/2012 08:51 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >> The options seem to be run the script as the owner of >> the >> plpgsql EXTENSION or do not include the comment. >> >> How does one instruct pg_dump not to include the COMMENT >> for the plpgsql extension? > > I am not sure pg_dump is including the COMMENT. From your > previous post the source of the COMMENT would seem to be > development_structure.sql, which I assume is coming from > RoR. > RoR is using pg_dump to create development_structure.sql. A direct invocation of pg_dump -s from the command line gives this output. . . . COMMENT ON SCHEMA public IS 'standard public schema'; -- -- Name: plpgsql; Type: EXTENSION; Schema: -; Owner: -- CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS plpgsql WITH SCHEMA pg_catalog; -- -- Name: EXTENSION plpgsql; Type: COMMENT; Schema: -; Owner: -- COMMENT ON EXTENSION plpgsql IS 'PL/pgSQL procedural language'; . . . So, RoR is simply trying to deal with what Pg is providing it. The questions are: 1. Can the comments be suppressed? If so then how are the COMMENT statements suppressed within Pg itself or pg_dump?. The development_structure.sql is regenerated automatically so editing that file is futile. 2. Why is this an error in the first place? Surely a warning is sufficient if a comment cannot be applied. 3. Why are these dependencies not owned by the database owner to begin with? Surely this code: CREATE EXTENSION plpgsql SCHEMA pg_catalog VERSION "1.0"; ALTER EXTENSION plpgsql OWNER TO postgres; could just as easily specify the actual database owner instead? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
