Thread: pg_upgrade 9.0->9.2 failure: Mismatch of relation OID in database
On upgrading a 9.0 database to 9.2 using pg_upgrade, I got this: # pg_upgradecluster -m upgrade 9.0 main /psql/data-9.2 [...] Performing Upgrade ------------------ [...] Restoring database schema to new cluster ok Removing support functions from new cluster ok Copying user relation files Mismatch of relation OID in database "hisrm": old OID 18804, new OID 18803 Failure, exiting Error: pg_upgrade run failed This is a cluster that was running with 9.0.12 (compiled locally). For the upgrade, I installed postgresql-9.0 and -9.2 from apt.postgresql.org (9.0.13, 9.2.4), so pg_upgrade was using these versions. OS is Ubuntu 12.04 amd64 now and was 8.04 while the cluster was still running on 9.0.12. In the 9.0 cluster, 18804 is the relation oid of glm_lrahm_to_se. pg_upgrade_dump_all.sql: -- -- Name: glm_lrahm_to_se; Type: TABLE; Schema: mbs; Owner: fsv; Tablespace: -- -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type oid SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_pg_type_oid('18806'::pg_catalog.oid); -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type array oid SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_array_pg_type_oid('18805'::pg_catalog.oid); -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_heap_pg_class_oid('18804'::pg_catalog.oid); CREATE TABLE glm_lrahm_to_se ( id integer NOT NULL, lrahm integer NOT NULL, se integer NOT NULL ); -- For binary upgrade, set heap's relfrozenxid UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_class SET relfrozenxid =3D '14118' WHERE oid =3D 'glm_lrahm_to_se'::pg_catalog.regclass; ALTER TABLE mbs.glm_lrahm_to_se OWNER TO fsv; pg_upgrade_restore.sql: SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_pg_type_oid('18806'::pg_catalog.oid); set_next_pg_type_oid ---------------------- (1 Zeile) SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_array_pg_type_oid('18805'::pg_catalog.oid); set_next_array_pg_type_oid ---------------------------- (1 Zeile) SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_heap_pg_class_oid('18804'::pg_catalog.oid); set_next_heap_pg_class_oid ---------------------------- (1 Zeile) CREATE TABLE glm_lrahm_to_se ( id integer NOT NULL, lrahm integer NOT NULL, se integer NOT NULL ); CREATE TABLE UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_class SET relfrozenxid =3D '14118' WHERE oid =3D 'glm_lrahm_to_se'::pg_catalog.regclass; UPDATE 1 ALTER TABLE mbs.glm_lrahm_to_se OWNER TO fsv; ALTER TABLE (I can provide more info on request.) Christoph --=20 cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:59:30PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > On upgrading a 9.0 database to 9.2 using pg_upgrade, I got this: > > # pg_upgradecluster -m upgrade 9.0 main /psql/data-9.2 > [...] > Performing Upgrade > ------------------ > [...] > Restoring database schema to new cluster ok > Removing support functions from new cluster ok > Copying user relation files > > Mismatch of relation OID in database "hisrm": old OID 18804, new OID 18803 > Failure, exiting > Error: pg_upgrade run failed > > > This is a cluster that was running with 9.0.12 (compiled locally). For > the upgrade, I installed postgresql-9.0 and -9.2 from > apt.postgresql.org (9.0.13, 9.2.4), so pg_upgrade was using these > versions. OS is Ubuntu 12.04 amd64 now and was 8.04 while the cluster > was still running on 9.0.12. > > In the 9.0 cluster, 18804 is the relation oid of glm_lrahm_to_se. > > > pg_upgrade_dump_all.sql: > -- > -- Name: glm_lrahm_to_se; Type: TABLE; Schema: mbs; Owner: fsv; Tablespace: > -- > > > -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type oid > SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_pg_type_oid('18806'::pg_catalog.oid); > > > -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type array oid > SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_array_pg_type_oid('18805'::pg_catalog.oid); > > > -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids > SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_heap_pg_class_oid('18804'::pg_catalog.oid); > > CREATE TABLE glm_lrahm_to_se ( > id integer NOT NULL, > lrahm integer NOT NULL, > se integer NOT NULL > ); That is very interesting, and it certainly should not be failing. I am surprised it got an oid that was one less than the desired one, 18803. Is there any mention of 18803 in the SQL file? If you create a cluster with just your schema and no data, can you upgrade that cleanly? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Re: Bruce Momjian 2013-10-02 <20131002170628.GC5960@momjian.us> > That is very interesting, and it certainly should not be failing. > > I am surprised it got an oid that was one less than the desired one, > 18803. Is there any mention of 18803 in the SQL file? 18803 wasn't mentioned anywhere, just 18804 like the log says. > If you create a > cluster with just your schema and no data, can you upgrade that cleanly? I haven't tried that yet. This is on a customer machine we don't have access to except when arranging a remote desktop session. I'll see if I can do some tests there. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Christoph Berg -- Tel.: +49 (0)21 61 / 46 43-187 credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080, USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209 Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer