Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-20 Thread Groshev Andrey 


20.12.2012, 13:00, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
 On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 08:55:16AM +0400, Groshev Andrey wrote:

  No, old database not use table plob..
  only primary key

  --
  -- Name: plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: CONSTRAINT; Schema: 
 public; Owner: postgres; Tablespace:
  --

  -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids
  SELECT 
 binary_upgrade.set_next_index_pg_class_oid('786665369'::pg_catalog.oid);

  ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ PRIMARY KEY 
 (@Файл, Страница);

 OK, now I know what is happening, though I can't figure out yet how you
 got there.  Basically, when you create a primary key, the name you
 supply goes into two places, pg_class, for the index, and pg_constraint
 for the constraint name.

 What is happening is that you have a pg_class entry called lob.*_pkey
 and a pg_constraint entry with plob.*.  You can verify it yourself by
 running queries on the system tables.  Let me know if you want me to
 show you the queries.

 pg_dump dumps the pg_constraint name when recreating the index, while
 pg_upgrade uses the pg_class name.  When you restore the database into
 the new cluster, the pg_class index name is lost and the new primary key
 gets identical pg_class and pg_constraint names.


I have already begun to approach this to the idea, when noticed that pgAdmin 
describes this index through _pkey, and through the pg_dump plob..
But your letter immediately pointed me to the end of my research :)

 I tried to recreate the problem with these commands:

 test= create table test (x int primary key);
 NOTICE:  CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index 
 test_pkey for table test
 CREATE TABLE
 test= alter index test_pkey rename to ptest;
 ALTER INDEX
 test= select * from pg_constraint where conname = 'ptest';
  conname | connamespace |
 -+--+-
  ptest   | 2200 |
 (1 row)

 test= select * from pg_class where relname = 'ptest';
  relname | relnamespace |
 -+--+-
  ptest   | 2200 |
 (1 row)

 As you can see, ALTER INDEX renamed both the pg_constraint and pg_class
 names.  Is it possible someone manually updated the system table to
 rename this primary key?  That would cause this error message.  The fix
 is to just to make sure they match.

 Does pg_upgrade need to be modified to handle this case?  

Unfortunately, my knowledge is not enough to talk about it.
I do not know what comes first in this case: pg_class, pg_constraint or 
pg_catalog.index or pg_catalog.pg_indexes.
Incidentally, in the last of:

#
select  schemaname,tablename,indexname,tablespace from pg_catalog.pg_indexes 
where indexname like '%ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ%';
 schemaname |  tablename   |  indexname 
  | tablespace
+--+--+
 public | lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ | 
lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey|
 public | ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ | 
ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey|
 public | ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ | 
iВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-blb_header |
(3 rows)

If pg_upgrade said that the old database is not in a very good condition, I 
would look for a problem in the database, and not something else.

 Are there legitimate cases where they will not match and the index name will 
 not
 be preserved though a dump/restore?  This seems safe:

 test= alter table test add constraint zz  primary key using index ii;
 NOTICE:  ALTER TABLE / ADD CONSTRAINT USING INDEX will rename index 
 ii to zz
 ALTER TABLE

 --
   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

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-20 Thread Groshev Andrey 


20.12.2012, 11:43, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
  19.12.2012, 21:47, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
  Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com writes:
   Groshev Andrey wrote:
     Mismatch of relation names: database database, old rel 
 public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel 
 public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
   There is a limit on identifiers of 63 *bytes* (not characters)
   after which the name is truncated. In UTF8 encoding, the underscore
   would be in the 64th position.
  Hmm ... that is a really good point, except that you are not counting
  the lob. or plob. part, which we previously saw is part of the
  relation name not the schema name.  Counting that part, it's already
  overlimit, which seems to be proof that Andrey isn't using UTF8 but
  some single-byte encoding.

  Anyway, that would only explain the issue if pg_upgrade were somehow
  changing the database encoding, which surely we'd have heard complaints
  about already?  Or maybe this has something to do with pg_upgrade's
  client-side encoding rather than the server encoding...

  regards, tom lane
  I'm initialize data dir with use ru_RU.UTF8, but this databse use CP1251, 
 ie one byte per character.

 Agreed.  This is a complicated report because the identifiers:

 *  contain periods
 *  are long
 *  are in cyrillic
 *  don't use utf8
 *  are very similar

 However, I just can't see how these could be causing the problem.
 Looking at the 9.1 pg_upgrade code, we already know that there are the
 same number of relations in old and new clusters, so everything must be
 being restored.  And there is a lob.* and a plob.* that exist.  The C
 code is also saying that the pg_class.oid of the lob.* in the old
 database is the same as the plob.* in the new database.  That question
 is how is that happening.

 Can you email me privately the output of:

 pg_dump --schema-only --binary-upgrade database

 Thanks.  If you want to debug this yourself, check these lines in the
 pg_dump output:

 -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids
 SELECT 
 binary_upgrade.set_next_index_pg_class_oid('786665369'::pg_catalog.oid);

 ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
 ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ PRIMARY 
 KEY (@Файл, Страница);

 See that 786665369?  That is the pg_class.oid of the plob in the old
 cluster, and hopefully the new one.  Find where the lob*_pkey index is
 created and get that oid.  Those should match the same names of the
 pg_class.oid in the old and new clusters, but it seems the new plob* oid
 is matching the lob oid in the old cluster.

 Also, pg_upgrade sorts everything by oid, so it can't be that somehow
 pg_upgrade isn't ordering things right, and because we already passed
 the oid check, we already know they have the same oid, but different
 names.

 --
   Bruce Momjian  br...@momjian.us    http://momjian.us
   EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

   + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Yes, was the last question. How to find out which version should stay?
And of course, I forgot to say a great big thank you!


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-19 Thread Groshev Andrey 

 Can you post the full definition of the table on this public email list?
 Also, why did the error think this was in the public schema?  Any idea?

 ---

  18.12.2012, 19:38, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
  On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
   Mismatch of relation names: database database, old rel 
 public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel 
 public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
   Failure, exiting
.. snip 

It's all what I'm found about this table.


--
-- Name: lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: TABLE; Schema: public; 
Owner: postgres; Tablespace: 
--

CREATE TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ (
@Файл integer NOT NULL,
Страница integer NOT NULL,
Данные bytea
);


ALTER TABLE public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ OWNER TO postgres;

--
-- Name: plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: CONSTRAINT; Schema: 
public; Owner: postgres; Tablespace: 
--

ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ 
PRIMARY KEY (@Файл, Страница);


--
-- Name: rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл; Type: FK CONSTRAINT; 
Schema: public; Owner: postgres
--

ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
ADD CONSTRAINT rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл 
FOREIGN KEY (@Файл) 
REFERENCES ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ(@Файл) 
ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE DEFERRABLE;

--
-- Name: lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: ACL; Schema: public; 
Owner: postgres
--

REVOKE ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ FROM PUBLIC;
REVOKE ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ FROM postgres;
GRANT ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ TO postgres;
GRANT SELECT ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ TO view_user;


There is another table ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ (without ^lob.)
It is referenced by a foreign key 
(rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл)
But as I understand it, the problem with the primary key.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-19 Thread Groshev Andrey 
No, old database not use table plob.. 
only primary key

--
-- Name: plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: CONSTRAINT; Schema: 
public; Owner: postgres; Tablespace:
--


-- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids
SELECT binary_upgrade.set_next_index_pg_class_oid('786665369'::pg_catalog.oid);

ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ PRIMARY KEY 
(@Файл, Страница);





20.12.2012, 06:35, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:51:08PM +0400, Groshev Andrey wrote:

  Can you post the full definition of the table on this public email list?
  Also, why did the error think this was in the public schema?  Any idea?

  ---
   18.12.2012, 19:38, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
   On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
    Mismatch of relation names: database database, old rel 
 public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel 
 public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
    Failure, exiting
  .. snip 

  It's all what I'm found about this table.

  --
  -- Name: lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: TABLE; Schema: public; 
 Owner: postgres; Tablespace:
  --

  CREATE TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ (
  @Файл integer NOT NULL,
  Страница integer NOT NULL,
  Данные bytea
  );

  ALTER TABLE public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ OWNER TO postgres;

  --
  -- Name: plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: CONSTRAINT; Schema: 
 public; Owner: postgres; Tablespace:
  --

  ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  PRIMARY KEY (@Файл, Страница);

  --
  -- Name: rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл; Type: FK CONSTRAINT; 
 Schema: public; Owner: postgres
  --

  ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  ADD CONSTRAINT rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл
  FOREIGN KEY (@Файл)
  REFERENCES ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ(@Файл)
  ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE DEFERRABLE;

  --
  -- Name: lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: ACL; Schema: public; 
 Owner: postgres
  --

  REVOKE ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ FROM PUBLIC;
  REVOKE ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ FROM postgres;
  GRANT ALL ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ TO postgres;
  GRANT SELECT ON TABLE lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ TO view_user;

  There is another table ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ (without ^lob.)
  It is referenced by a foreign key 
 (rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл)
  But as I understand it, the problem with the primary key.

 Does the old database have a table with prefix plob., called
 plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ?

 If not, if you do pg_dumpall --schema-only --binary-upgrade, is there a
 table with that name mentioned?

 --
   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

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-19 Thread Groshev Andrey 
No, people can confuse writing, but it makes a computer.
Unfortunately, I have not found developer this database, but I understand the 
logic was:
plob - primary key (lob ~ BLOB)
rlob - reference key (lob ~ BLOB)
Maybe if I describe the task, this part of the database, the problem is clear.
We need to maintain external documents (binary scans, per page).
Therefore, there is a table to store the titles and a table to store binary 
data.
To make it more comfortable I replaced all Russian words translated words.

This a table for headers store.

-- Table: VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
-- DROP TABLE VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document;

CREATE TABLE VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
(
  @File integer NOT NULL DEFAULT 
nextval((pg_get_serial_sequence('public.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document'::text,
 '@File'::text))::regclass),
  GUID uuid,
  DataTime timestamp without time zone DEFAULT (now())::timestamp without 
time zone,
  Name character varying,
  Size integer,
  CONSTRAINT VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document_pkey PRIMARY KEY (@File)
)
WITH (
  OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
  OWNER TO postgres;
GRANT ALL ON TABLE VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document TO postgres;
GRANT SELECT ON TABLE VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document TO view_user;

-- Index: iVersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document-blb_header
-- DROP INDEX iVersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document-blb_header;

CREATE INDEX iVersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document-blb_header
  ON VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
  USING btree
  (GUID, @Файл, ДатаВремя)
  WHERE GUID IS NOT NULL;
---
And this for data.

-- Table: lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
-- DROP TABLE lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document;
CREATE TABLE lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
(
  @File integer NOT NULL,
  Page integer NOT NULL,
  Data bytea,
  CONSTRAINT lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document_pkey PRIMARY KEY 
(@File, Page),
  CONSTRAINT rlob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document-@File FOREIGN KEY 
(@File)
  REFERENCES VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document (@File) MATCH SIMPLE
  ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE
)
WITH (
  OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document
  OWNER TO postgres;
GRANT ALL ON TABLE lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document TO postgres;
GRANT SELECT ON TABLE lob.VersionOfTheExternalDocument$Document TO view_user;








20.12.2012, 07:12, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:35:11PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

  There is another table ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ (without ^lob.)
  It is referenced by a foreign key 
 (rlob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-@Файл)
  But as I understand it, the problem with the primary key.
  Does the old database have a table with prefix plob., called
  plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ?

  If not, if you do pg_dumpall --schema-only --binary-upgrade, is there a
  table with that name mentioned?

 Also, when you say rlob above, is the 'r' a Latin letter sound that
 would look like a Russian 'p' in the error message?  (In Cyrillic, a
 Latin-looking p sounds like Latin-sounding r.)

 --
   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

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-19 Thread Groshev Andrey 
I'm initialize data dir with use ru_RU.UTF8, but this databse use CP1251, ie 
one byte per character.


19.12.2012, 21:47, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
 Kevin Grittner kgri...@mail.com writes:

  Groshev Andrey wrote:
    Mismatch of relation names: database database, old rel 
 public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel 
 public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  There is a limit on identifiers of 63 *bytes* (not characters)
  after which the name is truncated. In UTF8 encoding, the underscore
  would be in the 64th position.

 Hmm ... that is a really good point, except that you are not counting
 the lob. or plob. part, which we previously saw is part of the
 relation name not the schema name.  Counting that part, it's already
 overlimit, which seems to be proof that Andrey isn't using UTF8 but
 some single-byte encoding.

 Anyway, that would only explain the issue if pg_upgrade were somehow
 changing the database encoding, which surely we'd have heard complaints
 about already?  Or maybe this has something to do with pg_upgrade's
 client-side encoding rather than the server encoding...

 regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-18 Thread Groshev Andrey 
later in the log pg_dump, I found the definition of new rel

--
-- Name: plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ; Type: CONSTRAINT; Schema: 
public; Owner: postgres; Tablespace:
--

ALTER TABLE ONLY lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
ADD CONSTRAINT plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ PRIMARY KEY 
(@Файл, Страница);




18.12.2012, 19:38, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
 On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

  Mismatch of relation names: database database, old rel 
 public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new rel 
 public.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ
  Failure, exiting

 I am now confused over the error message above.  This is the code that
 is generating the error:

 /*
  * TOAST table names initially match the heap pg_class oid.
  * In pre-8.4, TOAST table names change during CLUSTER; in pre-9.0,
  * TOAST table names change during ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN SET TYPE.
  * In = 9.0, TOAST relation names always use heap table oids, hence
  * we cannot check relation names when upgrading from pre-9.0.
  * Clusters upgraded to 9.0 will get matching TOAST names.
  */
 if (strcmp(old_rel-nspname, new_rel-nspname) != 0 ||
 ((GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) = 900 ||
   strcmp(old_rel-nspname, pg_toast) != 0) 
  strcmp(old_rel-relname, new_rel-relname) != 0))
 pg_log(PG_FATAL, Mismatch of relation names: database \%s\, 
    old rel %s.%s, new rel %s.%s\n,
    old_db-db_name, old_rel-nspname, old_rel-relname,
    new_rel-nspname, new_rel-relname);

 Looking at the Russian, I see 'old rel' public.lob.* and 'new rel'
 public.plob.*.  I assume the database is called 'database', and the
 schema is called 'public', but what is 'lob' and 'plob'?  If those are
 tables or indexes, what is after the period?  Do you have periods
 embedded in the table/index names?  That is certainly possible, but not
 common, e.g.:

 test= create table test.x (y int);
 CREATE TABLE

 Is the schema called public.lob?  I expected to see schema.objname.

 --
   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

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 - 9.1

2012-12-17 Thread Groshev Andrey 


18.12.2012, 05:22, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
 This is the first pg_upgrade mismatch report we have gotten about 9.1.
 I have asked the reporter for details.

 Is what is the full 9.1 version number?

 ---

  # rpm -qa |grep postgres
  postgresql90-devel-9.0.11-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql91-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql90-9.0.11-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql90-server-9.0.11-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql91-libs-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql91-server-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql91-devel-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql90-libs-9.0.11-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql90-contrib-9.0.11-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64
  postgresql91-contrib-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64


Full version ? It is not full postgresql91-9.1.7-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64 or I do not 
understand something?
I installed latest postgresql from the repository http://yum.pgrpms.org



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers