From: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:56:13 +0800
Message-ID: <5056833D.7030908@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2932.1347846538@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
于2012年9月17日 9:48:58,Tom Lane写到:
> Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com> 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
>
No, I have never manually re-created the table. 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'.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: ruralhunter@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
In-Reply-To: <5056833D.7030908@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox