Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

于2012年9月17日 1:17:46,Bruce Momjian写到:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:38:37PM +0800, Rural Hunter wrote:
>>> OK, I see many new ALTER TABLE commands, but nothing that would cause a
>>> difference in relation count.
>>>
>>> Attached is a patch that will return the OID of the old/new mismatched
>>> entries.  Please research the pg_class objects on the old/new clusters
>>> that have the mismatch and let me know.  It might be something that
>>> isn't in the old cluster, or not in the new cluster.
>>>
>> I ran the pg_upgrade with the patch and found the problematic object
>> is a toast object.
>> Copying user relation files
>> /raid/pgsql/base/6087920/6088238
>> Mismatch of relation OID in database "forummon": old OID 16439148,
>> new OID 16439322
>>
>> In old cluster:
>> # select * from pg_class WHERE oid=16439148;
>> relname | relnamespace | reltype | reloftype | relowner | relam |
>> relfilenode | reltablespace | relpages | reltuples | reltoastrelid |
>> reltoastidxid | relhasindex | relisshared | relpersistence | relkind
>> | relnatts | relchecks | relhasoids | relhaspkey | relhasrules |
>> relhastriggers | relhassubclass | relfrozenxid | relacl | reloptions
>>
-------------------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+---------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+--------------+--------+------------
>> pg_toast_16439145 | 99 | 16439149 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 16439148 | 0 | 0 |
>> 0 | 0 | 16439150 | t | f | p | t | 3 | 0 | f | t | f | f | f |
>> 630449585 | |
>> (1 row)
>>
>> But it doesn't exist in new cluster:
>> select * from pg_class WHERE oid=16439148;
>> relname | relnamespace | reltype | reloftype | relowner | relam |
>> relfilenode | reltablespace | relpages | reltuples | relallvisible |
>> reltoastrelid | reltoastidxid | relhasindex | relisshared |
>> relpersistence | relkind | relnatts | relchecks | relhasoids |
>> relhaspkey | relhasrules | relhastriggers | relhassubclass |
>> relfrozenxid | relacl | reloptions
>>
---------+--------------+---------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+---------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+--------------+--------+------------
>> (0 rows)
>
> [ Thread moved to hackers list.]
>
> OK, this is exactly what I wanted to see, and it explains why pg_dump
> didn't show it.  Can you find out what table references this toast
> table?  Try this query on the old cluster:
>
>     select oid, * from pg_class WHERE reltoastrelid = 16439148;
>
> I believe it will have an oid of 16439145, or it might not exist.
>
# select oid, * from pg_class WHERE reltoastrelid = 16439148;  oid    |   relname    | relnamespace | reltype  |
reloftype| 
 
relowner | relam | relfilenode | reltablespace | relpages | reltuples | 
reltoastrelid | reltoastidxid | relhasindex | relisshared | 
relpersistence | relkind | relnatts | relchecks | relhasoids | 
relhaspkey | relhasrules | relhastriggers | relhassubclass | 
relfrozenxid |                 relacl                  | reloptions

----------+--------------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+---------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------16439145
|sql_features |     16438995 | 16439147 |         0 |       
 
10 |     0 |    16439145 |             0 |        0 |         0 |      
16439148 |             0 | f           | f           | p              | 
r       |        7 |         0 | f          | f          | f           
| f              | f              |    630449585 | 
{postgres=arwdDxt/postgres,=r/postgres} |
(1 row)

It's not a table. I haven't seen this name before. not sure why it 
exists. So what's the next thing I can do?