Обсуждение: Problems with pg_restore (plpgsql already exists)

I'm running into a problem where I can't restore a previous database using pg_restore because the plpgsql language
alreadyexists. All the searching I've done implies that the fix is to created the database from template0, but that
doesn'tseem to be working in my case for some reason. I'm running 9.1.2 and here's the basic procedure that I'm using
totry to restore if anyone has any ideas why it's not working. 

1) Create a new data directory
2) Run initdb to initialize the database directories
3) Run 'pg_restore --create postgresql.pgr --dbname=template1'

I use the '--dbname=template1' option to allow the process to connect to the server and create the database for me.
It'smy understanding from reading the man page that's the correct way to connect. Since it's a new database there's no
otherdatabase to connect to since template0 refuses connections (or at least it has when I've tried recently).  Also,
thisis a new problem I didn't run into when I was using PostgreSQL 8.4 and it's only happened since I've upgraded to
9.1.2.

If I just run 'pg_restore --create postgresql.pgr' I see the following relevant lines:

CREATE DATABASE foo WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'UTF8' LC_COLLATE = 'en_US.UTF-8' LC_CTYPE = 'en_US.UTF-8';


ALTER DATABASE foo OWNER TO foo;

\connect foo

SET statement_timeout = 0;
SET client_encoding = 'UTF8';
SET standard_conforming_strings = off;
SET check_function_bodies = false;
SET client_min_messages = warning;
SET escape_string_warning = off;

--
-- Name: plpgsql; Type: PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE; Schema: -; Owner: postgres
--

CREATE PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql;


ALTER PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql OWNER TO postgres;

SET search_path = public, pg_catalog;


------ END SNIPPET

As you can see the database is cloned from template0 so I don't know why plpgsql would already exists.

-- Brian

one way to get over this issue is to do  pg_dump of postgres 8.4 db
using postgres 9.1.2 binaries.
Here is a note from postgres 9.1.2 documentation

"In a default PostgreSQL installation, the handler for the PL/pgSQL
language is built and installed into the "library" directory;
furthermore, the PL/pgSQL language itself is installed in all databases.
If Tcl support is configured in, the handlers for PL/Tcl and PL/TclU are
built and installed in the library directory, but the language itself is
not installed in any database by default. Likewise, the PL/Perl and
PL/PerlU handlers are built and installed if Perl support is configured,
and the PL/PythonU handler is installed if Python support is configured,
but these languages are not installed by default."

hope this helps.

Thanks.
Dinesh

On 2/24/2012 2:30 PM, Brian Weaver wrote:
> CREATE DATABASE foo WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'UTF8' LC_COLLATE = 'en_US.UTF-8' LC_CTYPE = 'en_US.UTF-8';

So when did the installation of PL/PgSQL into all databases become standard operating procedure? It wasn't standard (or at least it didn't choke) on the installation of versions 8.3 and 8.4 that I have used on CentOS 5.

Seems like a fairly substantial change. Did I miss it in the release notes?

-- Brian

On Friday, February 24, 2012, Dinesh Bhandary wrote:

one way to get over this issue is to do  pg_dump of postgres 8.4 db using postgres 9.1.2 binaries.
Here is a note from postgres 9.1.2 documentation

"In a default PostgreSQL installation, the handler for the PL/pgSQL language is built and installed into the "library" directory; furthermore, the PL/pgSQL language itself is installed in all databases. If Tcl support is configured in, the handlers for PL/Tcl and PL/TclU are built and installed in the library directory, but the language itself is not installed in any database by default. Likewise, the PL/Perl and PL/PerlU handlers are built and installed if Perl support is configured, and the PL/PythonU handler is installed if Python support is configured, but these languages are not installed by default."

hope this helps.

Thanks.
Dinesh

On 2/24/2012 2:30 PM, Brian Weaver wrote:

CREATE DATABASE foo WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'UTF8' LC_COLLATE = 'en_US.UTF-8' LC_CTYPE = 'en_US.UTF-8';

--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

--

/* insert witty comment here */

On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:12 -0500, Brian Weaver wrote:
> So when did the installation of PL/PgSQL into all databases become standard
> operating procedure? It wasn't standard (or at least it didn't choke) on
> the installation of versions 8.3 and 8.4 that I have used on CentOS 5.
>
> Seems like a fairly substantial change. Did I miss it in the release notes?
>

Since 9.0, it's the third item in the overview list of the release notes
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0.html.


--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

Guillaume,

Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation since
9.0has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer by
tradeit smells like a bug.  

-- Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 25, 2012, at 10:31, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:12 -0500, Brian Weaver wrote:
>> So when did the installation of PL/PgSQL into all databases become standard
>> operating procedure? It wasn't standard (or at least it didn't choke) on
>> the installation of versions 8.3 and 8.4 that I have used on CentOS 5.
>>
>> Seems like a fairly substantial change. Did I miss it in the release notes?
>>
>
> Since 9.0, it's the third item in the overview list of the release notes
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0.html.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com
>

On Feb 25, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Brian Weaver wrote:

> Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation since
9.0has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer by
tradeit smells like a bug.  

It's pg_dump that's emitting the command to create the language. If you ran pg_dump from 9.0+, it would not do so. This
isan example of why the standard advice for upgrading is to use the newer pg_dump against the older database--you can
oftenget away without doing that, and I am one of those people who often ignores that advice and does things the easier
wayuntil it breaks, but it is safer. 

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice

On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 09:23 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Brian Weaver wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation
since9.0 has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer
bytrade it smells like a bug.  
>
> It's pg_dump that's emitting the command to create the language. If you ran pg_dump from 9.0+, it would not do so.

Not quite true. pg_dump from 9.0 does save the language definition, but
it uses the new CREATE OR REPLACE statement for languages, so that, when
you restore it in a 9.0+ database that already has the same language, it
won't complain with an error message.

BTW, it isn't odd that pg_dump 9.0 save the language definition. Having
by default the plpgsql language when you create a database doesn't mean
you can't drop it.

>  This is an example of why the standard advice for upgrading is to use the newer pg_dump against the older database

Exactly.


--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com

Thank you all for the explanation. I'll work around the issue. It's nice to understand the thought process even though
Imight disagree with it.  

-- Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 25, 2012, at 13:10, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 09:23 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Brian Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer. Is it just me that finds it the behavior of pg_restore odd? If the default installation
since9.0 has PL/PgSQL installed then why does pg_restore still emit statements to create the language? As a developer
bytrade it smells like a bug.  
>>
>> It's pg_dump that's emitting the command to create the language. If you ran pg_dump from 9.0+, it would not do so.
>
> Not quite true. pg_dump from 9.0 does save the language definition, but
> it uses the new CREATE OR REPLACE statement for languages, so that, when
> you restore it in a 9.0+ database that already has the same language, it
> won't complain with an error message.
>
> BTW, it isn't odd that pg_dump 9.0 save the language definition. Having
> by default the plpgsql language when you create a database doesn't mean
> you can't drop it.
>
>> This is an example of why the standard advice for upgrading is to use the newer pg_dump against the older database
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com
>