Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
Date
Msg-id 71c0662a-e9d0-c4d6-4704-61d5ec1f37df@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11  (James Sewell <james.sewell@jirotech.com>)
Responses Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
List pgsql-general
On 9/2/19 2:20 PM, James Sewell wrote:

> 
>     So this is a separate cluster from the one you used pg_upgrade on?
> 
> 
> In that case yes it was seperate
> 
> 
> 
>     In other words when doing pg_upgrade you could not get a working
>     cluster, correct?
> 
> 
> Pg_upgrade does not complete - but as it hasn’t started migrating data I 
> can start it and it’s fine (except for postgis which is now in a partial 
> install state)

Now I will actually respond to list:)

So from your original post:

1) "The tablename table gets created causing the above error"

Is 'tablename' a user table or part of PostGIS?

2) "Both the versions have PostGIS 2.5.1 installed and working"

How do you know it is working on the 11 version?


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 

> James Sewell,
> Chief Architect

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: James Sewell
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
Next
From: James Sewell
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11