Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Byrne
Subject Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id 4E4543C2.3050606@mdb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/11/2011 12:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-08-10 at 18:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dave Byrne<dbyrne@mdb.com>  writes:
>>> Attached is a patch that skips orphaned temporary relations in pg_upgrade if they are lingering around. It works
for9.0 ->  9.1 upgrades, however I wasn't able to tell when pg_class.relistemp was added so if it was unavailable in
versionsprior to 9.0 an additional check will have to be added.
 
>> I'm inclined to think the correct fix is to revert the assumption that
>> the old and new databases contain exactly the same number of tables ...
>> that seems to have a lot of potential failure modes besides this one.
> It's basically checking whether pg_dump -s worked.  That doesn't seem
> like a good use of time.
>
If anyone has a suggestion for a better approach I'm happy to work on it 
and amend the patch. It is certainly is a corner case but it bit me when 
preparing for the upcoming 9.1 release. I would imagine others will hit 
it as well.





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: index-only scans
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Reworking the writing of WAL