Hi! Sorry for this terrible oversight by me.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:13 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > 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. So, it seems that ltree 1.1 in PG13+ is incompatible with ltree on PG12 and ltree 1.2 on PG13+. And there are many scenarios involving. It seems too difficult to identify all the broken cases in the release notes. What about applying a patch and asking all ltree users to reindex their indexes? > 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. I think opclass options procedure shouldn't normally change opclass options chache. Before installation of options procedure, there should be no options. And options procedure shouldn't change the defaults in this case. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
