On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:18:04PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/pgupgrade.html > > > > "Obviously, no one should be accessing the clusters during the upgrade. > > pg_upgrade defaults to running servers on port 50432 to avoid unintended > > client connections. You can use the same port number for both clusters > when > > doing an upgrade because the old and new clusters will not be running at > the > > same time. However, when checking an old running server, the old and new > > port numbers must be different." > > > > In your OP you do not show overriding pg_upgrade defaults for ports, so > > assuming the scripts are looking for the live ports and not the upgrade > > ports that should not be an issue. > > Agreed. I have no idea what would cause this, and have never heard a > report like this before. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > Just out of curiosity, have you you ANALYZE on you db after the upgrade but before doing a count compare? -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
