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

Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches
Date: 2011-11-24 15:26:41
Message-ID: 201111241526.pAOFQfY16031@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24.11.2011 07:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > If I understood correctly, pg_upgrade of a database with exclusion 
> > constraints won't work without this patch? In that case, it should be 
> > backpatched.
> 
> Yes, that is my guess.  I will test it today or tomorrow.  I am
> surprised we had _no_ exclusion constraint tests in the regression tests
> until now.

I do see EXCLUDE constraints in 9.0, so I need to do some more research:

	CREATE TABLE circles (
	  c1 CIRCLE,
	  c2 TEXT,
	  EXCLUDE USING gist
	    (c1 WITH &&, (c2::circle) WITH &&)
	    WHERE (circle_center(c1) <> '(0,0)')
	);

It seems it is only the range-type EXCLUDE constraints that are causing
a problem.

-- 
  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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-24 15:54:50
Subject: Re: RangeVarGetRelid()
Previous:From: Alexander ShulginDate: 2011-11-24 15:22:06
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq

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