On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 01:54:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:35:06AM -0600, Chris Ernst wrote:
> > On 10/10/2012 09:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Can you show me what is in the PG_VERSION file in the old cluster? It
> > > should be "9.1".
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Thank you for the reply. Indeed it is "9.1":
> >
> > # cat /postgresql/9.1/main/PG_VERSION
> > 9.1
> >
> > And just for good measure:
> >
> > cat /postgresql/9.2/main/PG_VERSION
> > 9.2
> >
> > And there are no other PostgreSQL versions on this machine.
> >
> > Hmm... I was just about to send this when something else occurred to me.
> > I had initially tried to run pg_upgrade as root and it said it couldn't
> > be run as root. So I've been running it as my own user (which is in the
> > postgres group). However, everything in /postgresql/9.1/main is owned
> > by postgres with 700 permissions.
> >
> > I switched to the postgres user and now pg_upgrade is running. Perhaps
> > just a more informative error message is in order.
> >
> > Thank you for the shove in the right direction =)
>
> Oops, that code was returning zero if it couldn't open the file. The
> attached, applied patch to head and 9.2 issues a proper error message.
>
> Seems this "zero return" has been in the code since the beginning. :-(
CC to hackers.
Above is the email that caused me to fixed pg_upgrade's handling when it
can't read the data directory; patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
