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

Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: depesz(at)depesz(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
Date: 2011-08-31 16:32:04
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZMpY4CmxOCvWP+1=PKUMop8Pnxj3+E-Czy01xLOV=GUA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:18:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >
>> > OK, this was very helpful.  I found out that there is a bug in current
>> > 9.0.X, 9.1.X, and HEAD that I introduced recently when I excluded temp
>> > tables.  (The bug is not in any released version of pg_upgrade.)  The
>> > attached, applied patches should fix it for you.  I assume you are
>> > running 9.0.X, and not 9.0.4.
>>
>> pg_upgrade worked. Now I'm doing reindex and later on vacuumdb -az.
>>
>> will keep you posted.
>
> FYI, this pg_upgrade bug exists in PG 9.1RC1, but not in earlier betas.
> Users can either wait for 9.1 RC2 or Final, or use the patch I posted.
> The bug is not in 9.0.4 and will not be in 9.0.5.

Based on subsequent discussion on this thread, it sounds like
something is still broken.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: hubert depesz lubaczewskiDate: 2011-08-31 17:03:22
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-08-31 16:23:07
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: DonDate: 2011-08-31 16:52:19
Subject: Re: out of memory - no sort
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2011-08-31 16:29:17
Subject: Re: out of memory - no sort

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