Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jamie Fox wrote:
> 
> > > I can also see that the pg_largeobject table is different, in the pg_restore
> > > version the Rows (estimated) is 316286 and Rows (counted) is the same, in
> > > the pg_migrator version the Rows (counted) is only 180507.
> 
> > Wow, I didn't test large objects specifically, and I am confused why
> > there would be a count discrepancy. I will need to do some research
> > unless someone else can guess about the cause.
> 
> Maybe pg_largeobject is not getting frozen?

That would explain the change in count, but I thought we froze
_everything_, and had to.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist afterpg_migrator at 2009-07-13 22:35:45 from Alvaro Herrera

Responses

• Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist afterpg_migrator at 2009-07-14 00:28:58 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Mischa Sandberg	Date: 2009-07-13 22:38:36
	Subject: Re: Index-only scans
Previous:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2009-07-13 22:35:45
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist afterpg_migrator

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2009-07-13 23:18:09
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_migrator not setting values of sequences?
Previous:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2009-07-13 22:35:45
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist afterpg_migrator