| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |
| Date: | 2016-01-08 21:39:22 |
| Message-ID: | 56902C8A.2060800@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 01/08/2016 01:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:03:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, the one-liner fix that I'd had in mind when I wrote that does indeed
>>> fix this particular problem, but after studying the code I realized that
>>> there's a whole bunch of related problems; for instance I believe
>>> pg_upgrade would lose domain constraints on a domain type that's in an
>>> extension installed into pg_catalog :-(.
>
>> Does this warrant adding a few words to the documentation
>> warning against installing extensions into pg_catalog. ?
>
> No, it's just a bug. Although apparently not many people do that, or
> we'd have heard complaints before.
That dredged up a memory from way back:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200411251906.43881.aklaver@comcast.net
in particular:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20077.1101510670@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2016-01-08 21:53:01 | "partial" data constraint - trigger or CONSTRAINT ? was: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-08 21:26:25 | Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me |