From 52b23b4e1c6f703a6617c027a5def99772af4ce4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 18:22:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Ensure that "pg_restore -l" reports dependent TOC entries correctly. If -l was specified together with selective-restore options such as -n or -N, dependent TOC entries such as comments would be omitted from the listing, even when an actual restore would have selected them. This happened because PrintTOCSummary neglected to update the te->reqs marking of the entry they depended on. Per report from Justin Pryzby. This has been wrong since 0d4e6ed30 taught _tocEntryRequired to sometimes look at the "reqs" marking of other TOC entries, so back-patch to all supported branches. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZjoeirG7yxODdC4P@pryzbyj2023 --- src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c index 93930c6197..bef37dd2b7 100644 --- a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c +++ b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c @@ -1219,10 +1219,13 @@ PrintTOCSummary(Archive *AHX) curSection = SECTION_PRE_DATA; for (te = AH->toc->next; te != AH->toc; te = te->next) { + /* This bit must match ProcessArchiveRestoreOptions' marking logic */ if (te->section != SECTION_NONE) curSection = te->section; + te->reqs = _tocEntryRequired(te, curSection, AH); + /* Now, should we print it? */ if (ropt->verbose || - (_tocEntryRequired(te, curSection, AH) & (REQ_SCHEMA | REQ_DATA)) != 0) + (te->reqs & (REQ_SCHEMA | REQ_DATA)) != 0) { char *sanitized_name; char *sanitized_schema;