Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade relation OID mismatches
Date: 2011-11-24 05:01:40
Message-ID: 201111240501.pAO51eU05863@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
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 text/x-diff 654 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Shulgin 2011-11-24 06:57:36 Re: Notes on implementing URI syntax for libpq
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-11-24 04:45:24 Re: logging in high performance systems.