Hi!
Sorry for this terrible oversight by me.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:13 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> > On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> >>>> So, we probably have corrupted indexes that were updated since such
> >>>> "incomplete" upgrade of ltree.
> >>> IIRC pg_upgrade is not expected to upgrade extensions - it keeps the
> >>> installed version of the extension, and that's intentional.
> >> Yeah, exactly. But this opens up an additional consideration we
> >> have to account for: whatever we do needs to work with either 1.1
> >> or 1.2 SQL-level versions of the extension.
> >>
> >> regards, tom lane
> >
> > It becomes clear that ltree upgrade 1.1 => 1.2 is broken, the problem
> > is not so much related to PG12 => PG13+ upgrades.
So, it seems that ltree 1.1 in PG13+ is incompatible with ltree on
PG12 and ltree 1.2 on PG13+. And there are many scenarios involving.
It seems too difficult to identify all the broken cases in the release
notes. What about applying a patch and asking all ltree users to
reindex their indexes?
> Well, it's quite a mess :-(
>
> It very clearly is not just 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade issue, because you can
> get a crash with 1.1 after PG12 -> PG13 upgrade, as demonstrated
> earlier. So just "fixing" the extension upgrade is no enough.
>
> But as you showed, 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade is broken too.
>
> >
> > You can see here another problem: installation of opclass options
> > procedure does not invalidate relation's opclass options cache.
> >
>
> Seems like that.
I think opclass options procedure shouldn't normally change opclass
options chache. Before installation of options procedure, there
should be no options. And options procedure shouldn't change the
defaults in this case.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
