From 52b23b4e1c6f703a6617c027a5def99772af4ce4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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 93930c6197d..bef37dd2b70 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;
--
2.39.5