Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)jirotech(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
Date: 2019-09-04 00:03:30
Message-ID: e1602016-3c54-f4cb-7b33-a28fec5210f5@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 9/3/19 3:45 PM, James Sewell wrote:
>
>

>
> -- For binary upgrade, create an empty extension and insert objects
> into it
> DROP EXTENSION IF EXISTS tablefunc;
> SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension('tablefunc',
> 'public', true, '1.0', NULL, NULL, ARRAY[]::pg_catalog.text[]);
>
>
> Try the above on your schema and see what you get.
>
>
> Yep - an empty extension. I think this logic is wrong. Creating an empty
> extension is fine and makes sense but extension owned relations should
> be created as the next step, not just at some time later.
>

So to be clear you ran pg_dump with --binary-upgrade and the extension
elements where created after the user table that tripped the error?

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2019-09-04 00:19:49 Re: killing vacuum analyze process
Previous Message Will Storey 2019-09-03 23:38:19 Re: Unexpected "canceling statement due to user request" error