Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tl3JW-0002aF-07 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:58:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tl3JU-0004hP-RD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:58:52 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tl3JT-0004gf-F5 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:58:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tl3JS-0007Wq-Da for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:58:50 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBIJwjne013662; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:58:45 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: Andres Freund , Bernhard Schrader , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Problems with enums after pg_upgrade In-reply-to: <50D0C80D.90806@dunslane.net> References: <50CEFE95.9040301@innogames.de> <20121218014137.GB29143@momjian.us> <50D02D13.3010004@innogames.de> <50D0914E.3040508@dunslane.net> <20121218162256.GA24700@momjian.us> <50D0B0AD.9010905@innogames.de> <11487.1355855052@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20121218183916.GA7666@awork2.anarazel.de> <12773.1355859273@sss.pgh.pa.us> <50D0C80D.90806@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:46:21 -0500" Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:58:44 -0500 Message-ID: <13661.1355860724@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andrew Dunstan writes: > He's upgrading from 9.0, which didn't have enum extension at all, and > where odd enums didn't mean anything special. Really? The noncontiguous pg_enum OIDs shown in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-12/msg01089.php suggest strongly that *something's* been done to that type since it was created. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers