Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
Date
Msg-id 20829.1315341395@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem  (hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem
List pgsql-hackers
hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> writes:
> Worked a bit to get the ltree problem down to smallest possible, repeatable, situation.

I looked at this again and verified that indeed, commit
8eee65c996048848c20f6637c1d12b319a4ce244 introduced an incompatible
change into the on-disk format of ltree columns: it widened
ltree_level.len, which is one component of an ltree on disk.
So the crash is hardly surprising.  I think that the only thing
pg_upgrade could do about it is refuse to upgrade when ltree columns
are present in an 8.3 database.  I'm not sure though how you'd identify
contrib/ltree versus some random user-defined type named ltree.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.1] sepgsql - userspace access vector cache