Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem

From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
Date: 2011-08-25 20:53:18
Message-ID: 20110825205318.GA25225@depesz.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 04:43:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Please check the old cluster.

Sure:

=# SELECT reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname  = 'actions';                                                                                                                                                                             
 reltoastrelid 
---------------
      82510395
      71637071
(2 rows)

=# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname  = 'actions';                                                                                                                                                                             
      oid      | reltoastrelid 
---------------+---------------
 xxxxx.actions |      82510395
 yyyyy.actions |      71637071
(2 rows)

=# select oid, relfilenode from pg_class where oid in (SELECT reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname  = 'actions');
   oid    | relfilenode 
----------+-------------
 82510395 |    82510395
 71637071 |    71637071
(2 rows)

=# select oid from pg_database where datname = current_database();
   oid    
----------
 71635381
(1 row)

$ ls -l 6666/base/71635381/{71637071,82510395}
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2009-10-12 06:49 6666/base/71635381/71637071
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2010-08-19 14:02 6666/base/71635381/82510395

> > > > One more thing - one of earlier tests actually worked through
> > > > pg_upgrade, but when running vacuumdb -az on newly started 9.0.4, I got
> > > > error about missing transaction/clog - don't remember exactly what it
> > > > was, though.
> > > THere was a bug in how how pg_upgrade worked in pre-9.0.4 --- could it
> > > have been that?
> > It was done definitely using 9.0.4.
> Good.

Not sure if it's good, since it was after the clog error was fixed, and
I still got it :/

but anyway - the problem with 71637071 is more important now.

Best regards,

depesz


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tomas VondraDate: 2011-08-25 20:57:11
Subject: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-08-25 20:49:51
Subject: Re: SSI 2PC coverage

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Martín MarquésDate: 2011-08-26 00:46:30
Subject: passing cursors from one PL function to another
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-08-25 20:43:02
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group