Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
Date: 2011-02-15 15:23:27
Message-ID: 201102151523.p1FFNRN08398@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run
> > went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but
> > every connection attempt fails with
>
> > psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
>
> > The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to,
> > but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode
> > belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade
> > would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a
> > useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted.
>
> Closer investigation shows that in the new database, relfilenode 11683
> belongs to pg_class_oid_index, which explains why it's being touched
> during backend startup. It is indeed of zero length, and surely should
> not be. I can't resist the guess that something about the recently
> added hacks for pg_largeobject_metadata is not right.

FYI, I have reproduced the bug here --- researching the cause now.

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

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2011-02-15 15:26:21 Re: Add support for logging the current role
Previous Message Alexey Klyukin 2011-02-15 14:39:07 Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]