Re: Failure upgrading PG 9.2 to 9.3

Yes Adrian,

That is correct (upgraded 9.2 to 9.3 via pg_dump), more than happy to
provide pg devs with the actual db if needed.

Pretty sure the target db is good, especially since we just dumped a
single db (did not do a dump_all)

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Adrian Klaver
<adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 04:32 PM, Sam Saffron wrote:
>>
>> Thanks heaps Tom,
>>
>> I can confirm corrupt db upgrades fine with pg_dump. Was wondering if
>> there are any plans to add a --no-validate to pg_upgrade, since the
>> crash seems only to happen during validation.
>
>
> Hmm, so I am still unclear on this. The 'corrupt' database is the one you
> upgraded away from or to? If to I am not sure you have solved anything. For
> the sake of discussion I am assuming you did a pg_dump on the 9.2 instance
> and a restore on the 9.3 instance. Is this correct?
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Sam
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sam Saffron <sam(dot)saffron(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Why would
>>>> "ERROR: operator does not exist: name !~ unknown"
>>>> Come up ?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's hard to explain that as anything except corrupted system catalogs
>>> in your existing database :-(. If you were really lucky, reindexing
>>> pg_operator would fix it; but since pg_operator is usually pretty static,
>>> it seems unlikely that it suffered index corruption.
>>>
>>>> Any way to work around this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather than relying on pg_upgrade, you could try using pg_dump(all)
>>> to extract the data. With some luck, pg_dump wouldn't be affected by
>>> whatever has happened to the pg_operator catalog.
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com