On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote: > On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote: >>>> So, we probably have corrupted indexes that were updated since such >>>> "incomplete" upgrade of ltree. >>> IIRC pg_upgrade is not expected to upgrade extensions - it keeps the >>> installed version of the extension, and that's intentional. >> Yeah, exactly. But this opens up an additional consideration we >> have to account for: whatever we do needs to work with either 1.1 >> or 1.2 SQL-level versions of the extension. >> >> regards, tom lane > > It becomes clear that ltree upgrade 1.1 => 1.2 is broken, the problem > is not so much related to PG12 => PG13+ upgrades. >
Well, it's quite a mess :-( It very clearly is not just 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade issue, because you can get a crash with 1.1 after PG12 -> PG13 upgrade, as demonstrated earlier. So just "fixing" the extension upgrade is no enough. But as you showed, 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade is broken too. > > You can see here another problem: installation of opclass options > procedure does not invalidate relation's opclass options cache. > Seems like that. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
