From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
In-reply-to: <5056833D.7030908@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> <2932.1347846538@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<5056833D.7030908@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:56:13 +0800"
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:07:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4512.1347851264@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com> writes:
> 于2012年9月17日 9:48:58,Tom Lane写到:
>> 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?

> No, I have never manually re-created the table.

I think you must have, because the query output shows that sql_features,
its rowtype, and the information_schema all have OIDs much larger than
they would have had in a virgin installation.  The large relfilenode
could have been explained by a VACUUM FULL, but the other OIDs wouldn't
have been changed by that.

> This is the first time 
> I see the name. But I'm not sure other things I installed before 
> recreated it or not, such as pg_buffercache etc. One more thing, is 
> this a hidden table? I can see it with '\d 
> information_schema.sql_features' but it's not in the list of '\d'.

That just means that information_schema is not in your search_path.

			regards, tom lane