| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |
| Date: | 2012-09-19 06:05:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20120919060538.GA11783@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 07:22:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Based on the fact that sql_features exists in the information_schema
> > schema, I don't think 'sql_features' table is actually being processed
> > by pg_upgrade, but I think its TOAST table, because it has a high oid,
> > is being processed because it is in the pg_toast schema. This is
> > causing the mismatch between the old and new clusters.
> >
> > I am thinking this query needs to be split apart into a UNION where the
> > second part handles TOAST tables and looks at the schema of the _owner_
> > of the TOAST table. Needs to be backpatched too.
>
> OK, I am at a conference now so will not be able to write-up a patch
> until perhaps next week. You can drop the information schema in the old
> database and pg_upgrade should run fine. I will test your failure once
> I create a patch.
One good thing is that pg_upgrade detected there was a bug in the code
and threw an error, rather than producing an inaccurate dump.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | A J | 2012-09-19 16:36:57 | Postgres Cache usage |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-18 23:22:39 | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2012-09-19 06:05:55 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Previous Message | Gibheer | 2012-09-19 04:09:51 | Re: 9.2 Cascading replication after slave promotion |