Re: 9.2 to 9.5 pg_upgrade losing data

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/pgupgrade.html
> >
> > "Obviously, no one should be accessing the clusters during the upgrade.
> > pg_upgrade defaults to running servers on port 50432 to avoid unintended
> > client connections. You can use the same port number for both clusters
> when
> > doing an upgrade because the old and new clusters will not be running at
> the
> > same time. However, when checking an old running server, the old and new
> > port numbers must be different."
> >
> > In your OP you do not show overriding pg_upgrade defaults for ports, so
> > assuming the scripts are looking for the live ports and not the upgrade
> > ports that should not be an issue.
>
> Agreed. I have no idea what would cause this, and have never heard a
> report like this before.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

Just out of curiosity, have you you ANALYZE on you db after the upgrade but
before doing a count compare?

--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.