Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 24.11.2011 07:01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> OK, that is a heap table. My only guess is that the heap is being > >> created without binary_upgrade_next_heap_pg_class_oid being set. > >> Looking at the code, I can't see how the heap could be created without > >> this happening. Another idea is that pg_dumpall isn't output the proper > >> value, but again, how is this data type different from the others. > > > > I have reproduced the failure and found it was code I added to pg_dump > > back in 9.0. The code didn't set the index oid for exclusion constraint > > indexes. Once these were added to the regression tests for range types > > recently, pg_upgrade threw an error. > > > > My assumption is that anyone trying to use an exclusion constraint with > > pg_upgrade will get the same type of error. > > > > Patch attached. Should it be backpatched to 9.0 and 9.1? > > If I understood correctly, pg_upgrade of a database with exclusion > constraints won't work without this patch? In that case, it should be > backpatched.
Yes, that is my guess. I will test it today or tomorrow. I am surprised we had _no_ exclusion constraint tests in the regression tests until now. -- 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
