Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
Date
Msg-id 19772.1355942835@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1  ("Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com> writes:
> Groshev Andrey wrote:
>   Mismatch of relation names: database "database", old rel public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel
public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ

> There is a limit on identifiers of 63 *bytes* (not characters)
> after which the name is truncated. In UTF8 encoding, the underscore
> would be in the 64th position.

Hmm ... that is a really good point, except that you are not counting
the "lob." or "plob." part, which we previously saw is part of the
relation name not the schema name.  Counting that part, it's already
overlimit, which seems to be proof that Andrey isn't using UTF8 but
some single-byte encoding.

Anyway, that would only explain the issue if pg_upgrade were somehow
changing the database encoding, which surely we'd have heard complaints
about already?  Or maybe this has something to do with pg_upgrade's
client-side encoding rather than the server encoding...
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Review of Row Level Security
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune