Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade

From: Dave Byrne <dbyrne(at)mdb(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade
Date: 2011-08-12 15:16:18
Message-ID: 4E4543C2.3050606@mdb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/11/2011 12:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-08-10 at 18:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dave Byrne<dbyrne(at)mdb(dot)com> writes:
>>> Attached is a patch that skips orphaned temporary relations in pg_upgrade if they are lingering around. It works for 9.0 -> 9.1 upgrades, however I wasn't able to tell when pg_class.relistemp was added so if it was unavailable in versions prior to 9.0 an additional check will have to be added.
>> I'm inclined to think the correct fix is to revert the assumption that
>> the old and new databases contain exactly the same number of tables ...
>> that seems to have a lot of potential failure modes besides this one.
> It's basically checking whether pg_dump -s worked. That doesn't seem
> like a good use of time.
>
If anyone has a suggestion for a better approach I'm happy to work on it
and amend the patch. It is certainly is a corner case but it bit me when
preparing for the upcoming 9.1 release. I would imagine others will hit
it as well.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-08-12 15:34:21 Reworking the writing of WAL
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-08-12 15:13:57 Re: index-only scans