Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed

From: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Date: 2012-09-17 05:07:20
Message-ID: 5056B008.4010209@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

于2012年9月17日 12:47:11,Tom Lane写到:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 09:48:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, that's even stranger, because (1) information_schema.sql_features
>>> ought to have a toast table in either version, and (2) neither pg_dump
>>> nor pg_upgrade ought to be attempting to dump or transfer that table.
>
>> I bet pg_upgrade is picking it up from the old cluster because it has an
>> oid >= FirstNormalObjectId and the table is not in the information
>> schema.
>
> If it *isn't* in information_schema, but is just some random table that
> happens to be named sql_features, then it's hard to explain why there's
> anything going wrong at all. My money is on the OP having done a reload
> of the information_schema (as per, eg, the release notes for 9.1.2), and
> somehow that's confusing pg_dump and/or pg_upgrade.
ah yes yes, now I can remember it! I have followed the release notes
and re-created the whole information_schema schema.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message himanshu.joshi 2012-09-17 06:25:59 Problem after changing the port number of postgres
Previous Message Rural Hunter 2012-09-17 05:03:37 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-09-17 05:35:06 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Properly set relpersistence for fake relcache entries.
Previous Message Rural Hunter 2012-09-17 05:03:37 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed