From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
Date: | 2018-02-20 21:27:44 |
Message-ID: | 23575.1519162064@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not 100% sure this is a pg_upgrade bug or a pg_dump
> --binary-upgrade one, or some other thing, but at this point I'm
> fairly certain there's something wrong in one of them.
The symptoms you're mentioning suggest two bugs: (1) it's not clear
why binary upgrade should treat a matview's relfrozenxid differently
from a regular table's; (2) independently of that, it sounds like REFRESH
MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY is somehow preventing advancement of the
matview's relfrozenxid in the source DB.
> I just tried to pg_upgrade a database from 9.5 to 10.2. I took a
> snapshot off a replica, promoted it, and then did the pg_upgrade there
> (to avoid breaking our production server).
And that brings replication behavior into the mix, too :-(. I'd
suggest seeing if you can duplicate these problems without any
replication involved.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-20 21:32:46 | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-02-20 21:26:59 | Re: pg_upgrade and materialized views |