Restoring into 11.3 instance the 9.6 dump ? -> yes. For the upgrade scenario, I confirmed that both old column name and new name are in the pg_attribute table at the time the patch attempts to rename it. Why both is a big question. However, It is easy enough to re-write the column rename function to deal with the simultaneous possibility. I will include the redefined function in the merge patch and see how it goes.
I'll update the thread after some further exploration. Thanks all for your assistance. -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 11:47 AM To: Day, David <david....@redcom.com>; Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> Cc: Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@gmail.com>; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Rename a column if not already renamed.? On 8/21/19 7:52 AM, Day, David wrote: > I agree the function could be improved to deal with both old and new name > existing simultaneously. > That is almost certainly the root cause, and one that I would confirm if the > tester and site were currently available to me. > > Our work flow for this scenario is something like: > > 1. 9.6 pg_dump takes a snapshot of our 9.6 database. > 2. Postgres is upgraded/freshly installed to 11.3.. > 3. The 9.6 database is restored using the version 11 pg_restore tool. In 3) you are restoring to the new 11.3 instance, correct? > > 4. Once our application process starts up, it sees there is a patch available > in it's old branch that is one greater then it's restored 9.6 content. > That happens to be a merge patch which resets the expectations. > It attempts to apply all patches in the new branch since the point of > divergence and runs into my current issue. > > It occurs to me I could simply put an exception handler in the rename column > function and I would likely proceed merrily along. > But curiosity is killing me and the cat. What is causing the old name to > persist in the pg_attribute table after the rename. ? If you are indeed working on the new instance pg_attribute would have no 'memory' of the dropped column. It would seem to me to come down to what is passed into sys.rename_column() as old_name_, new_name. > > Would a stale function referencing the old column name be a contributor? > > > Regards > > > Dave Day > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:57 PM > To: Day, David <david....@redcom.com> > Cc: Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@gmail.com>; pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: Rename a column if not already renamed.? > > "Day, David" <david....@redcom.com> writes: >> The error is something like column already exists and > > Not sure about the workflow this function is used within, but maybe you need > to consider what to do when both the old and new column names exist. > Because that sure sounds like what is happening. > > regards, tom lane > > > > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
