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

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
Date
Msg-id e1602016-3c54-f4cb-7b33-a28fec5210f5@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Upgrade 96 -> 11  (James Sewell <james.sewell@jirotech.com>)
Responses Re: Upgrade 96 -> 11
List pgsql-general
On 9/3/19 3:45 PM, James Sewell wrote:
> 
> 

> 
>     -- For binary upgrade, create an empty extension and insert objects
>     into it
>     DROP EXTENSION IF EXISTS tablefunc;
>     SELECT pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension('tablefunc',
>     'public', true, '1.0', NULL, NULL, ARRAY[]::pg_catalog.text[]);
> 
> 
>     Try the above on your schema and see what you get.
> 
> 
> Yep - an empty extension. I think this logic is wrong. Creating an empty 
> extension is fine and makes sense but extension owned relations should 
> be created as the next step, not just at some time later.
> 

So to be clear you ran pg_dump with  --binary-upgrade and the extension 
elements where created after the user table that tripped the error?



-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Will Storey
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected "canceling statement due to user request" error
Next
From: Ron
Date:
Subject: Re: killing vacuum analyze process