Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  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