Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Date: 2012-09-19 06:05:38
Message-ID: 20120919060538.GA11783@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 07:22:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Based on the fact that sql_features exists in the information_schema
> > schema, I don't think 'sql_features' table is actually being processed
> > by pg_upgrade, but I think its TOAST table, because it has a high oid,
> > is being processed because it is in the pg_toast schema. This is
> > causing the mismatch between the old and new clusters.
> >
> > I am thinking this query needs to be split apart into a UNION where the
> > second part handles TOAST tables and looks at the schema of the _owner_
> > of the TOAST table. Needs to be backpatched too.
>
> OK, I am at a conference now so will not be able to write-up a patch
> until perhaps next week. You can drop the information schema in the old
> database and pg_upgrade should run fine. I will test your failure once
> I create a patch.

One good thing is that pg_upgrade detected there was a bug in the code
and threw an error, rather than producing an inaccurate dump.

--
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-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message A J 2012-09-19 16:36:57 Postgres Cache usage
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-09-18 23:22:39 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2012-09-19 06:05:55 Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY
Previous Message Gibheer 2012-09-19 04:09:51 Re: 9.2 Cascading replication after slave promotion