From: | John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
Date: | 2018-07-17 07:55:07 |
Message-ID: | CAJVSVGU8nWxnW3PEKPjH2Ve_R5K+trowFvj6Z2WCmJwgkWGkAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/17/18, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> I was just having a second look at this patch, and did a bit more tests
> with pg_upgrade which passed.
>
> +-- 2. pg_largeobject and pg_largeobject_metadata, to avoid problems
> +-- with pg_upgrade
> John, what's actually the failure that was seen here? It would be nice
> to see this patch committed but the reason here should be more
> explicit about why this cannot happen.
I'll copy what I wrote upthread last month:
On 6/19/18, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2/20/18, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Regression tests of pg_upgrade are failing as follows:
>> New cluster database "postgres" is not empty
>> Failure, exiting
>> + rm -rf /tmp/pg_upgrade_check-Xn0ZLe
>
> I looked into this briefly. The error comes from
> check_new_cluster_is_empty() in src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c, which
> contains the comment
>
> /* pg_largeobject and its index should be skipped */
I didn't dig deeper, since TOAST and the large object facility are
mutually exclusive so there shouldn't be a toast table here anyway.
Hope this helps.
-John Naylor
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-17 09:03:26 | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-17 07:10:05 | Re: Another usability issue with our TAP tests |