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

Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: 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 13:07:51
Message-ID: 4ECE41A7.1080900@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-11-24 13:21:49
Subject: Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2011-11-24 12:58:27
Subject: Re: Time bug with small years

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