From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem |
Date: | 2011-08-26 04:18:55 |
Message-ID: | 201108260418.p7Q4Itk17514@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 04:43:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Please check the old cluster.
>
> Sure:
>
> =# SELECT reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'actions';
> reltoastrelid
> ---------------
> 82510395
> 71637071
> (2 rows)
>
> =# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'actions';
> oid | reltoastrelid
> ---------------+---------------
> xxxxx.actions | 82510395
> yyyyy.actions | 71637071
> (2 rows)
>
> =# select oid, relfilenode from pg_class where oid in (SELECT reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'actions');
> oid | relfilenode
> ----------+-------------
> 82510395 | 82510395
> 71637071 | 71637071
> (2 rows)
>
> =# select oid from pg_database where datname = current_database();
> oid
> ----------
> 71635381
> (1 row)
>
> $ ls -l 6666/base/71635381/{71637071,82510395}
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2009-10-12 06:49 6666/base/71635381/71637071
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 0 2010-08-19 14:02 6666/base/71635381/82510395
>
> > > > > One more thing - one of earlier tests actually worked through
> > > > > pg_upgrade, but when running vacuumdb -az on newly started 9.0.4, I got
> > > > > error about missing transaction/clog - don't remember exactly what it
> > > > > was, though.
> > > > THere was a bug in how how pg_upgrade worked in pre-9.0.4 --- could it
> > > > have been that?
> > > It was done definitely using 9.0.4.
> > Good.
>
> Not sure if it's good, since it was after the clog error was fixed, and
> I still got it :/
>
> but anyway - the problem with 71637071 is more important now.
>
> Best regards,
>
> depesz
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
/rtmp/pg_upgrade.9.0 | text/x-diff | 5.7 KB |
/rtmp/pg_upgrade.9.1 | text/x-diff | 5.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Niyas | 2011-08-26 09:48:29 | Re: backup-strategies for large databases |
Previous Message | Ondrej Ivanič | 2011-08-26 04:10:07 | Re: Sort Method: external merge |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-08-26 04:35:45 | Removal of useless include references |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2011-08-26 04:08:24 | dropdb and dropuser: IF EXISTS |