Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TDQSM-0006PF-RL for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:49:03 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TDQSL-0004zK-Sr for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:49:02 +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 q8H1mxNj002933; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:48:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: Rural Hunter cc: Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed In-reply-to: <50567E60.2000005@gmail.com> References: <5052C402.8020003@gmail.com> <20120914142616.GA11265@momjian.us> <50535302.8080000@gmail.com> <20120914183915.GA5933@momjian.us> <5053F896.60005@gmail.com> <20120915180603.GA20907@momjian.us> <505557CD.8090304@gmail.com> <20120916171746.GA24907@momjian.us> <50567E60.2000005@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Rural Hunter message dated "Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:35:28 +0800" Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:48:58 -0400 Message-ID: <2932.1347846538@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201209/625 X-Sequence-Number: 213653 Rural Hunter writes: > # select oid, * from pg_class WHERE reltoastrelid = 16439148; > oid | relname | relnamespace | reltype | reloftype | > relowner | relam | relfilenode | reltablespace | relpages | reltuples | > reltoastrelid | reltoastidxid | relhasindex | relisshared | > relpersistence | relkind | relnatts | relchecks | relhasoids | > relhaspkey | relhasrules | relhastriggers | relhassubclass | > relfrozenxid | relacl | reloptions > ----------+--------------+--------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------+-------------+---------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+-------------+-------------+----------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+--------------+-----------------------------------------+------------ > 16439145 | sql_features | 16438995 | 16439147 | 0 | > 10 | 0 | 16439145 | 0 | 0 | 0 | > 16439148 | 0 | f | f | p | > r | 7 | 0 | f | f | f > | f | f | 630449585 | > {postgres=arwdDxt/postgres,=r/postgres} | > (1 row) Well, that's even stranger, because (1) information_schema.sql_features ought to have a toast table in either version, and (2) neither pg_dump nor pg_upgrade ought to be attempting to dump or transfer that table. I wonder whether you dropped and recreated the information_schema in the lifetime of this database? We have recommended doing that in the past, IIRC. Could such a thing have confused pg_dump? regards, tom lane