Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Karsten Hilbert
Subject Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me
Date
Msg-id 20160108115833.GC22446@hermes.hilbert.loc
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me  (Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:45:29PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

>     pg_restore: erstelle EXTENSION „pg_trgm“
>     pg_restore: erstelle COMMENT „EXTENSION "pg_trgm"“
>     pg_restore: erstelle FUNCTION „pg_catalog.gtrgm_in("cstring")“
>     pg_restore: [Archivierer (DB)] Fehler in Phase PROCESSING TOC:
>     pg_restore: [Archivierer (DB)] Fehler in Inhaltsverzeichniseintrag 893; 1255 511230 FUNCTION gtrgm_in("cstring")
postgres
>     pg_restore: [Archivierer (DB)] could not execute query: ERROR:  pg_type OID value not set when in binary upgrade
mode
>         Die Anweisung war: CREATE FUNCTION "gtrgm_in"("cstring") RETURNS "gtrgm"
>         LANGUAGE "c" IMMUTABLE STRICT
>         AS '$libdir/pg_trgm', 'gtrgm_in'...
>
> For one thing - does it seem odd that the function would be
> named "gtrgm_in" rather than "pgtrgm_in" ?

A bit of searching shows that that seems to be normal.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ eu.pool.sks-keyservers.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Karsten Hilbert
Date:
Subject: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me
Next
From: Karsten Hilbert
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 9.4 -> 9.5 with pg_trgm fails for me