> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mi<C3><A9> sep 28 13:48:28 -0300 > > 2011: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > OK, so it fails for all tables and you are using the newest version. > > > > Thanks for all your work. I am now guessing that pg_upgrade 9.1.X is > > > > just broken on Windows. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the variables set by pg_upgrade_support.so are not being passed > > > > into the server variables? I know pg_upgrade 9.0.X worked on Windows > > > > because EnterpriseDB did extensive testing recently on this. Has > > > > anyone used pg_upgrade 9.1.X on Windows? > > > > > > OK, I have a new theory. postmaster.c processes the -b > > > (binary-upgrade) flag by setting a C variable: > > > > > > case 'b': > > > /* Undocumented flag used for binary upgrades */ > > > IsBinaryUpgrade = true; > > > break; > > > > > > I am now wondering if this variable is not being passed down to the > > > sessions during Win32's EXEC_BACKEND. Looking at the other postmaster > > > settings, these set GUC variables, which I assume are passed down. Can > > > someone confirm this? > > > > Well, you could compile it with -DEXEC_BACKEND to test it for yourself. > > > > > How should this be fixed? > > > > Maybe it should be part of struct BackendParameters. > > Thanks. That's what I did, and tested the failure with -DEXEC_BACKEND, > and the fix with the patch, which is attached. I am confident this will > fix Windows as well.
Applied, and backpatched to 9.1.X. Thanks for the report. The fix will be in 9.1.2. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
