Thread: pg_upgrade and reg* system oid user types
Hi, I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've missed it, of course) that, with the addition of check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables. Otherwise, pg_upgrade has worked wonderfully for me - thanks again for bringing it into contrib. Best regards, -- Glen Barber
On 8/3/10 10:07 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've
> missed it, of course) that, with the addition of
> check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for
> example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables.
>
> Otherwise, pg_upgrade has worked wonderfully for me - thanks again for
> bringing it into contrib.
Good to hear. Problem report forwarded to Bruce.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
Josh Berkus wrote: > On 8/3/10 10:07 AM, Glen Barber wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've > > missed it, of course) that, with the addition of > > check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for > > example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables. > > > > Otherwise, pg_upgrade has worked wonderfully for me - thanks again for > > bringing it into contrib. > > Good to hear. Problem report forwarded to Bruce. I was wondering if users were storing text search reg* data types in their user tables. Is this common? Why only pre-8.3? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Glen Barber wrote: > Hi, > > I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've > missed it, of course) that, with the addition of > check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for > example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables. This is already mentioned in the pg_upgrade manual page. Since this is a new utility, and hence not changed from a preivous release, it would not be appropriate to mention this restriction in the release notes, unless it is a restriction we find to be common. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 8/3/10 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 8/3/10 10:07 AM, Glen Barber wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've >>> missed it, of course) that, with the addition of >>> check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for >>> example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables. >>> >>> Otherwise, pg_upgrade has worked wonderfully for me - thanks again for >>> bringing it into contrib. >> >> Good to hear. Problem report forwarded to Bruce. > > I was wondering if users were storing text search reg* data types in > their user tables. Is this common? Why only pre-8.3? > The database I am using in testing 9.0 is a development database which mimics our production environment as closely as it can. This particular data has been through several PostgreSQL upgrades, beginning with 7.4, if I remember correctly. The reg* data types in user tables is from before tsearch functionality was added to core. Regards, -- Glen Barber
Glen Barber wrote: > On 8/3/10 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > >> On 8/3/10 10:07 AM, Glen Barber wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I think it might be worth mentioning in the release notes (unless I've > >>> missed it, of course) that, with the addition of > >>> check_for_reg_data_type_usage(), pg_upgrade will error if it finds, for > >>> example, tsearch data from pre-8.3 in user tables. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, pg_upgrade has worked wonderfully for me - thanks again for > >>> bringing it into contrib. > >> > >> Good to hear. Problem report forwarded to Bruce. > > > > I was wondering if users were storing text search reg* data types in > > their user tables. Is this common? Why only pre-8.3? > > > > The database I am using in testing 9.0 is a development database which > mimics our production environment as closely as it can. This particular > data has been through several PostgreSQL upgrades, beginning with 7.4, > if I remember correctly. The reg* data types in user tables is from > before tsearch functionality was added to core. OK, good to know. I am hoping that isn't something that many people have in their databases. We can fix the reg* migration, but it is too late for 9.0 and fixing it will require additional code in the backend that we would prefer to avoid. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 8/3/10 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I was wondering if users were storing text search reg* data types in >>> their user tables. Is this common? Why only pre-8.3? >>> >> >> The database I am using in testing 9.0 is a development database which >> mimics our production environment as closely as it can. This particular >> data has been through several PostgreSQL upgrades, beginning with 7.4, >> if I remember correctly. The reg* data types in user tables is from >> before tsearch functionality was added to core. > > OK, good to know. I am hoping that isn't something that many people > have in their databases. We can fix the reg* migration, but it is too > late for 9.0 and fixing it will require additional code in the backend > that we would prefer to avoid. > I wasn't sure if it would be common. I was able to move forward with a dump/restore for now; I'll remove the user tables in question and run it through pg_upgrade again later this week. Thanks for the feedback. Regards, -- Glen Barber
Glen Barber wrote: > On 8/3/10 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> I was wondering if users were storing text search reg* data types in > >>> their user tables. Is this common? Why only pre-8.3? > >>> > >> > >> The database I am using in testing 9.0 is a development database which > >> mimics our production environment as closely as it can. This particular > >> data has been through several PostgreSQL upgrades, beginning with 7.4, > >> if I remember correctly. The reg* data types in user tables is from > >> before tsearch functionality was added to core. > > > > OK, good to know. I am hoping that isn't something that many people > > have in their databases. We can fix the reg* migration, but it is too > > late for 9.0 and fixing it will require additional code in the backend > > that we would prefer to avoid. > > > > I wasn't sure if it would be common. I was able to move forward with a > dump/restore for now; I'll remove the user tables in question and run it > through pg_upgrade again later this week. Yes, pg_upgrade should have recommended manual upgrade of tables using reg* so you could still use pg_upgrade. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +