Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head
Date
Msg-id 20150803002022.GP3587@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2015-08-01 19:13:05 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:42:55PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > The next hump is this, in restoring contrib_regression_test_ddl_parse:
> > >
> > >    pg_restore: creating FUNCTION "public"."text_w_default_in("cstring")"
> > >    pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error while PROCESSING TOC:
> > >    pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 243; 1255 62534
> > >    FUNCTION text_w_default_in("cstring") buildfarm
> > >    pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: pg_type
> > >    OID value not set when in binary upgrade mode
> > >         Command was: CREATE FUNCTION "text_w_default_in"("cstring")
> > >    RETURNS "text_w_default"
> > >         LANGUAGE "internal" STABLE STRICT
> > >         AS $$texti...
> > >
> > > Is this worth bothering about, or should I simply remove the database before
> > > trying to upgrade?
> >
> > That's a bug.  The test_ddl_deparse suite leaves a shell type, which
> > pg_upgrade fails to reproduce.  Whether to have pg_upgrade support that or
> > just error out cleanly is another question.
>
> There seems little justification to not support shell types. We should
> also add a shell type to the standard regression testing database,
> they're "weird" enough that some increased exposure seems like a good
> idea.

+1.

I was doing testing the other day and ran into the "pg_dump doesn't
support shell types" issue and it was annoyingly confusing.
Thanks!
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: nodes/*funcs.c inconsistencies