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

Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches
Date: 2011-11-24 05:01:40
Message-ID: 201111240501.pAO51eU05863@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, that is a heap table.  My only guess is that the heap is being
> created without binary_upgrade_next_heap_pg_class_oid being set.
> Looking at the code, I can't see how the heap could be created without
> this happening.  Another idea is that pg_dumpall isn't output the proper
> value, but again, how is this data type different from the others.

I have reproduced the failure and found it was code I added to pg_dump
back in 9.0.  The code didn't set the index oid for exclusion constraint
indexes.  Once these were added to the regression tests for range types
recently, pg_upgrade threw an error.

My assumption is that anyone trying to use an exclusion constraint with
pg_upgrade will get the same type of error.

Patch attached.  Should it be backpatched to 9.0 and 9.1?

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

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

Attachment: /rtmp/pg_upgrade
Description: text/x-diff (654 bytes)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alexander ShulginDate: 2011-11-24 06:57:36
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2011-11-24 04:45:24
Subject: Re: logging in high performance systems.

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