From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |
Date: | 2012-09-17 03:07:44 |
Message-ID: | 4512.1347851264@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2012917 9:48:58,Tom Lane:
>> I wonder whether you dropped and recreated the information_schema in
>> the lifetime of this database? We have recommended doing that in the
>> past, IIRC. Could such a thing have confused pg_dump?
> No, I have never manually re-created the table.
I think you must have, because the query output shows that sql_features,
its rowtype, and the information_schema all have OIDs much larger than
they would have had in a virgin installation. The large relfilenode
could have been explained by a VACUUM FULL, but the other OIDs wouldn't
have been changed by that.
> This is the first time
> I see the name. But I'm not sure other things I installed before
> recreated it or not, such as pg_buffercache etc. One more thing, is
> this a hidden table? I can see it with '\d
> information_schema.sql_features' but it's not in the list of '\d'.
That just means that information_schema is not in your search_path.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-09-17 04:32:36 | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |
Previous Message | Rural Hunter | 2012-09-17 01:56:13 | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-09-17 03:37:24 | Re: [WIP] Patch : Change pg_ident.conf parsing to be the same as pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Rural Hunter | 2012-09-17 01:56:13 | Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed |