On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 07:22:39PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Based on the fact that sql_features exists in the information_schema
> > schema, I don't think 'sql_features' table is actually being processed
> > by pg_upgrade, but I think its TOAST table, because it has a high oid,
> > is being processed because it is in the pg_toast schema. This is
> > causing the mismatch between the old and new clusters.
> >
> > I am thinking this query needs to be split apart into a UNION where the
> > second part handles TOAST tables and looks at the schema of the _owner_
> > of the TOAST table. Needs to be backpatched too.
>
> OK, I am at a conference now so will not be able to write-up a patch
> until perhaps next week. You can drop the information schema in the old
> database and pg_upgrade should run fine. I will test your failure once
> I create a patch.
One good thing is that pg_upgrade detected there was a bug in the code
and threw an error, rather than producing an inaccurate dump.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
