Message-ID: <5056B008.4010209@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:07:20 +0800
From: Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_upgrade from 9.1.3 to 9.2 failed
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>
	<20120917043500.GB20123@momjian.us> <6578.1347857231@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <6578.1347857231@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

于2012年9月17日 12:47:11,Tom Lane写到:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 09:48:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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 bet pg_upgrade is picking it up from the old cluster because it has an
>> oid >= FirstNormalObjectId and the table is not in the information
>> schema.
>
> If it *isn't* in information_schema, but is just some random table that
> happens to be named sql_features, then it's hard to explain why there's
> anything going wrong at all.  My money is on the OP having done a reload
> of the information_schema (as per, eg, the release notes for 9.1.2), and
> somehow that's confusing pg_dump and/or pg_upgrade.
ah yes yes, now I can remember it! I have followed the release notes 
and re-created the whole information_schema schema.
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>