| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
| Date: | 2018-02-20 21:38:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpY0wu1UiPUMjDCTrxaR92EETXBqo0+fPDGeBbg-v64J7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not 100% sure this is a pg_upgrade bug or a pg_dump
>> --binary-upgrade one, or some other thing, but at this point I'm
>> fairly certain there's something wrong in one of them.
...
> (2) independently of that, it sounds like REFRESH
> MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY is somehow preventing advancement of the
> matview's relfrozenxid in the source DB.
Not necessarily. I have vacuum_table_freeze_max_age set to 350M, so
it's not yet due for freezing.
>> I just tried to pg_upgrade a database from 9.5 to 10.2. I took a
>> snapshot off a replica, promoted it, and then did the pg_upgrade there
>> (to avoid breaking our production server).
>
> And that brings replication behavior into the mix, too :-(. I'd
> suggest seeing if you can duplicate these problems without any
> replication involved.
Indeed, I'll try.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-02-20 21:44:53 | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-02-20 21:35:50 | Re: Segmentation Fault in logical decoding get/peek API |