On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 8:28 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 3/6/22 08:09, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > Yeah. I think this is getting so complicated that there's little chance > > we'd be able to clearly explain when to reindex. > > Good. The revised patch is attached. Instead of adding argument to > LTREE_GET_ASIGLEN(), it introduces separate LTREE_GET_SIGLEN() and > LTREE_GET_ASIGLEN() macros.
No feedback yet. I'm going to push this if no objections. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
