| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz(dot)szypowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 22:37:28 |
| Message-ID: | 7302.1552948648@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz(dot)szypowski(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So what set it to false?
I was hoping you'd tell me ;-). If it's not false in the old cluster,
though, that theory is all wet.
I wonder if you're somehow using the wrong version of pg_upgrade or
pg_dump. There are cross-checks about that in pg_upgrade, but it
looks like they only check the major version number --- if we'd changed
anything about this in a minor release (which I think we did), it might
be possible to get burnt if you were using pg_upgrade or pg_dump from a
prior minor release. What are all the versions involved, exactly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomasz Szypowski | 2019-03-18 22:43:13 | Re: pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-03-18 22:24:06 | Re: BUG #15700: PG 10 vs. 11: Large increase in memory usage when selecting BYTEA data (maybe memory leak) |