Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, that is a heap table. My only guess is that the heap is being > created without binary_upgrade_next_heap_pg_class_oid being set. > Looking at the code, I can't see how the heap could be created without > this happening. Another idea is that pg_dumpall isn't output the proper > value, but again, how is this data type different from the others.
I have reproduced the failure and found it was code I added to pg_dump back in 9.0. The code didn't set the index oid for exclusion constraint indexes. Once these were added to the regression tests for range types recently, pg_upgrade threw an error. My assumption is that anyone trying to use an exclusion constraint with pg_upgrade will get the same type of error. Patch attached. Should it be backpatched to 9.0 and 9.1? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c new file mode 100644 index 644637c..6dc3d40 *** a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c --- b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c *************** dumpConstraint(Archive *fout, Constraint *** 12926,12932 **** exit_nicely(); } ! if (binary_upgrade && !coninfo->condef) binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids(q, indxinfo->dobj.catId.oid, true); appendPQExpBuffer(q, "ALTER TABLE ONLY %s\n", --- 12926,12932 ---- exit_nicely(); } ! if (binary_upgrade) binary_upgrade_set_pg_class_oids(q, indxinfo->dobj.catId.oid, true); appendPQExpBuffer(q, "ALTER TABLE ONLY %s\n",
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
