> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mi<C3><A9> sep 28 13:48:28 -0300 2011:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > OK, so it fails for all tables and you are using the newest version.
> > > > Thanks for all your work. I am now guessing that pg_upgrade 9.1.X is
> > > > just broken on Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the variables set by pg_upgrade_support.so are not being passed
> > > > into the server variables? I know pg_upgrade 9.0.X worked on Windows
> > > > because EnterpriseDB did extensive testing recently on this. Has
> > > > anyone used pg_upgrade 9.1.X on Windows?
> > >
> > > OK, I have a new theory. postmaster.c processes the -b
> > > (binary-upgrade) flag by setting a C variable:
> > >
> > > case 'b':
> > > /* Undocumented flag used for binary upgrades */
> > > IsBinaryUpgrade = true;
> > > break;
> > >
> > > I am now wondering if this variable is not being passed down to the
> > > sessions during Win32's EXEC_BACKEND. Looking at the other postmaster
> > > settings, these set GUC variables, which I assume are passed down. Can
> > > someone confirm this?
> >
> > Well, you could compile it with -DEXEC_BACKEND to test it for yourself.
> >
> > > How should this be fixed?
> >
> > Maybe it should be part of struct BackendParameters.
>
> Thanks. That's what I did, and tested the failure with -DEXEC_BACKEND,
> and the fix with the patch, which is attached. I am confident this will
> fix Windows as well.
Applied, and backpatched to 9.1.X. Thanks for the report. The fix will
be in 9.1.2.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
