| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches |
| Date: | 2011-11-24 05:01:40 |
| Message-ID: | 201111240501.pAO51eU05863@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, that is a heap table. My only guess is that the heap is being
> created without binary_upgrade_next_heap_pg_class_oid being set.
> Looking at the code, I can't see how the heap could be created without
> this happening. Another idea is that pg_dumpall isn't output the proper
> value, but again, how is this data type different from the others.
I have reproduced the failure and found it was code I added to pg_dump
back in 9.0. The code didn't set the index oid for exclusion constraint
indexes. Once these were added to the regression tests for range types
recently, pg_upgrade threw an error.
My assumption is that anyone trying to use an exclusion constraint with
pg_upgrade will get the same type of error.
Patch attached. Should it be backpatched to 9.0 and 9.1?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| /rtmp/pg_upgrade | text/x-diff | 654 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Shulgin | 2011-11-24 06:57:36 | Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-11-24 04:45:24 | Re: logging in high performance systems. |