Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Date: 2012-09-17 04:47:11
Message-ID: 6578.1347857231@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rural Hunter 2012-09-17 05:03:37 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2012-09-17 04:42:39 Re: Windows Services and Postgresql 9.1.3

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rural Hunter 2012-09-17 05:03:37 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-09-17 04:35:00 Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed