Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
Murthy Nunna writes: BTW, this message was and remained cross-posted to 3 groups which is considered bad style around here and I was negligent too in the previous reply which also went out to all of them. Please take note. Thank -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consult...@comcast.net p: 312.241.7800
Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
Murthy Nunna writes: > Jerry, > > OMG, I think you nailed this... I know what I did. I cut/pasted the > command from an e-mail... I have seen this issue before with stuff not Oh! I suggest you lose that habit ASAP before ever issuing another command to anything :-) > related to postgres. But then those commands failed in syntax error > and then you know what you did wrong. > > Similarly, I expect pg_upgrade to throw an error if it finds something it > doesn't understand instead of ignoring and causing damage. Don't you agree? Well, pg_upgrade might never have seen your $silly-dash since possibly your shell or terminal driver swallowed it. > > Thanks for pointing that out. I will redo my upgrade. > > -r -v -k -c --- good flags no utf8 > -r -v -k –c --- bad flags > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jerry Sievers [mailto:gsiever...@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:24 PM > To: Murthy Nunna > Cc: Adrian Klaver ; > pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; > pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org > Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 > > Murthy Nunna writes: > >> Hi Adrian, >> >> Port numbers are correct. >> >> I moved the position of -c (-p 5433 -P 5434 -c -r -v). Now it is NOT >> complaining about old cluster running. However, I am running into a >> different problem. > > I noted in your earlier message the final -c... the dash was not a regular > 7bit ascii char but some UTF or whatever dash char. > > I wonder if that's what you fed your shell and it caused a silent parsing > issue, eg the -c dropped. > > But of course email clients wrap and mangle text like that all sorts of fun > ways so lordy knows just what you originally sent :-) > > FWIW > > >> >> New cluster database "ifb_prd_last" is not empty Failure, exiting >> >> Note: ifb_prd_last is not new cluster. It is actually old cluster. >> >> Is this possibly because in one of my earlier attempts where I >> shutdown old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with -c at the end of the >> command line. I think -c was ignored and my cluster has been upgraded >> in that attempt. Is that possible? >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:35 PM >> To: Murthy Nunna ; >> pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; >> pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 >> >> On 06/12/2018 02:18 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: >>> pg_upgrade -V >>> pg_upgrade (PostgreSQL) 10.4 >>> >>> pg_upgrade -b /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v9_3_14_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -B >>> /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v10_4_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -d >>> /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last -D /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last_104 -p 5433 >>> -P 5434 -r -v –c >>> >>> >> >> Looks good to me. The only thing that stands out is that in your original >> post you had: >> >> -p 5432 >> >> and above you have: >> >> -p 5433 >> >> Not sure if that makes a difference. >> >> The only suggestion I have at the moment is to move -c from the end of the >> line to somewhere earlier on the chance that there is a bug that is not >> finding it when it's at the end. >> >> >> -- >> Adrian Klaver >> adrian.kla...@aklaver.com > > -- > Jerry Sievers > Postgres DBA/Development Consulting > e: postgres.consult...@comcast.net > p: 312.241.7800 -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consult...@comcast.net p: 312.241.7800
Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
On 06/12/2018 02:49 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: Hi Adrian, Port numbers are correct. I moved the position of -c (-p 5433 -P 5434 -c -r -v). Now it is NOT complaining about old cluster running. However, I am running into a different problem. New cluster database "ifb_prd_last" is not empty Failure, exiting Note: ifb_prd_last is not new cluster. It is actually old cluster. Is this possibly because in one of my earlier attempts where I shutdown old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with -c at the end of the command line. I think -c was ignored and my cluster has been upgraded in that attempt. Is that possible? I don't so because it exited before it got the upgrading part. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
RE: pg_upgrade 10.2
Jerry, OMG, I think you nailed this... I know what I did. I cut/pasted the command from an e-mail... I have seen this issue before with stuff not related to postgres. But then those commands failed in syntax error and then you know what you did wrong. Similarly, I expect pg_upgrade to throw an error if it finds something it doesn't understand instead of ignoring and causing damage. Don't you agree? Thanks for pointing that out. I will redo my upgrade. -r -v -k -c --- good flags no utf8 -r -v -k –c --- bad flags -Original Message- From: Jerry Sievers [mailto:gsiever...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:24 PM To: Murthy Nunna Cc: Adrian Klaver ; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 Murthy Nunna writes: > Hi Adrian, > > Port numbers are correct. > > I moved the position of -c (-p 5433 -P 5434 -c -r -v). Now it is NOT > complaining about old cluster running. However, I am running into a different > problem. I noted in your earlier message the final -c... the dash was not a regular 7bit ascii char but some UTF or whatever dash char. I wonder if that's what you fed your shell and it caused a silent parsing issue, eg the -c dropped. But of course email clients wrap and mangle text like that all sorts of fun ways so lordy knows just what you originally sent :-) FWIW > > New cluster database "ifb_prd_last" is not empty Failure, exiting > > Note: ifb_prd_last is not new cluster. It is actually old cluster. > > Is this possibly because in one of my earlier attempts where I > shutdown old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with -c at the end of the > command line. I think -c was ignored and my cluster has been upgraded > in that attempt. Is that possible? > > > -Original Message- > From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:35 PM > To: Murthy Nunna ; > pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; > pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org > Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 > > On 06/12/2018 02:18 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: >> pg_upgrade -V >> pg_upgrade (PostgreSQL) 10.4 >> >> pg_upgrade -b /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v9_3_14_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -B >> /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v10_4_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -d >> /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last -D /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last_104 -p 5433 >> -P 5434 -r -v –c >> >> > > Looks good to me. The only thing that stands out is that in your original > post you had: > > -p 5432 > > and above you have: > > -p 5433 > > Not sure if that makes a difference. > > The only suggestion I have at the moment is to move -c from the end of the > line to somewhere earlier on the chance that there is a bug that is not > finding it when it's at the end. > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: postgres.consult...@comcast.net p: 312.241.7800
RE: pg_upgrade 10.2
Hi Adrian, Port numbers are correct. I moved the position of -c (-p 5433 -P 5434 -c -r -v). Now it is NOT complaining about old cluster running. However, I am running into a different problem. New cluster database "ifb_prd_last" is not empty Failure, exiting Note: ifb_prd_last is not new cluster. It is actually old cluster. Is this possibly because in one of my earlier attempts where I shutdown old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with -c at the end of the command line. I think -c was ignored and my cluster has been upgraded in that attempt. Is that possible? -Original Message- From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:35 PM To: Murthy Nunna ; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 On 06/12/2018 02:18 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: > pg_upgrade -V > pg_upgrade (PostgreSQL) 10.4 > > pg_upgrade -b /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v9_3_14_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -B > /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v10_4_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -d > /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last -D /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last_104 -p 5433 > -P 5434 -r -v –c > > Looks good to me. The only thing that stands out is that in your original post you had: -p 5432 and above you have: -p 5433 Not sure if that makes a difference. The only suggestion I have at the moment is to move -c from the end of the line to somewhere earlier on the chance that there is a bug that is not finding it when it's at the end. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
On 06/12/2018 02:18 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: pg_upgrade -V pg_upgrade (PostgreSQL) 10.4 pg_upgrade -b /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v9_3_14_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -B /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v10_4_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -d /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last -D /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last_104 -p 5433 -P 5434 -r -v –c Looks good to me. The only thing that stands out is that in your original post you had: -p 5432 and above you have: -p 5433 Not sure if that makes a difference. The only suggestion I have at the moment is to move -c from the end of the line to somewhere earlier on the chance that there is a bug that is not finding it when it's at the end. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
RE: pg_upgrade 10.2
pg_upgrade -V
pg_upgrade (PostgreSQL) 10.4
pg_upgrade -b /fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v9_3_14_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -B
/fnal/ups/prd/postgres/v10_4_x64/Linux-2-6/bin -d /data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last -D
/data0/pgdata/ifb_prd_last_104 -p 5433 -P 5434 -r -v –c
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:13 PM
To: Murthy Nunna ; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org;
pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
On 06/12/2018 01:58 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote:
> Thanks Adrian.
> I removed "-k" flag. But still got same error.
>
> There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster.
> Please shutdown that postmaster and try again.
> Failure, exiting
>
Well according to the code in pg_upgrade.c that message should not be reached
when the check option is specified:
if (!user_opts.check)
pg_fatal("There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster.\n"
"Please shutdown that postmaster and try again.\n"); else
*live_check = true;
Can we see the actual command you ran?
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
On 06/12/2018 01:58 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote:
Thanks Adrian.
I removed "-k" flag. But still got same error.
There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster.
Please shutdown that postmaster and try again.
Failure, exiting
Well according to the code in pg_upgrade.c that message should not be
reached when the check option is specified:
if (!user_opts.check)
pg_fatal("There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old
cluster.\n"
"Please shutdown that postmaster and try again.\n");
else
*live_check = true;
Can we see the actual command you ran?
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
RE: pg_upgrade 10.2
Thanks Adrian. I removed "-k" flag. But still got same error. There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster. Please shutdown that postmaster and try again. Failure, exiting -Original Message- From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:48 PM To: Murthy Nunna ; pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-ad...@lists.postgresql.org; pgsql-performa...@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_upgrade 10.2 On 06/12/2018 01:34 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: > In older versions of pg_upgrade (e.g from 9.2 to 9.3), I was able to > run pg_upgrade without stopping old cluster using the check flag. > > pg_upgrade -b -B -d -D -p > 5432 -P 5434 -r -v -k -c > > Note the "c" flag at the end I take the below to it mean it should work: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.postgresql.org_docs_10_static_pgupgrade.html=DwID-g=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=0wrsmPzpZSao0v32yCcG2Q=g2e1NMngBLIcEgi5UjlCHkyJ5zK1Su-vsaRw0Y9N0Dc=PDVmjA_uW6cJvV4lWR8vgkiArplzgd5Rs4taLA6ZY6Q= > "You can use pg_upgrade --check to perform only the checks, even if > the old server is still running. pg_upgrade --check will also outline any manual adjustments you will need to make after the upgrade. If you are going to be using link mode, you should use the --link option with --check to enable link-mode-specific checks." Might want to try without -k to see what happens. More comments below. > However pg_upgrade in 10 (I tried from 9.3 to 10.4), when I did not > stop the old cluster, the upgrade failed: > > *** > > There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster. > > Please shutdown that postmaster and try again. > > Failure, exiting > > Is this expected? > > Also, when I stopped the old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with "-c" > flag, the file global/pg_control got renamed to global/pg_control.old. > The "-c" flag never renamed anything in the old cluster in older > pg_upgrade Again seems related to -k: " If you ran pg_upgrade without --link or did not start the new server, the old cluster was not modified except that, if linking started, a .old suffix was appended to $PGDATA/global/pg_control. To reuse the old cluster, possibly remove the .old suffix from $PGDATA/global/pg_control; you can then restart the old cluster. " > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
Re: pg_upgrade 10.2
On 06/12/2018 01:34 PM, Murthy Nunna wrote: In older versions of pg_upgrade (e.g from 9.2 to 9.3), I was able to run pg_upgrade without stopping old cluster using the check flag. pg_upgrade -b -B -d -D -p 5432 -P 5434 -r -v -k -c Note the “c” flag at the end I take the below to it mean it should work: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/pgupgrade.html "You can use pg_upgrade --check to perform only the checks, even if the old server is still running. pg_upgrade --check will also outline any manual adjustments you will need to make after the upgrade. If you are going to be using link mode, you should use the --link option with --check to enable link-mode-specific checks." Might want to try without -k to see what happens. More comments below. However pg_upgrade in 10 (I tried from 9.3 to 10.4), when I did not stop the old cluster, the upgrade failed: *** There seems to be a postmaster servicing the old cluster. Please shutdown that postmaster and try again. Failure, exiting Is this expected? Also, when I stopped the old cluster and ran pg_upgrade with “-c” flag, the file global/pg_control got renamed to global/pg_control.old. The “-c” flag never renamed anything in the old cluster in older pg_upgrade Again seems related to -k: " If you ran pg_upgrade without --link or did not start the new server, the old cluster was not modified except that, if linking started, a .old suffix was appended to $PGDATA/global/pg_control. To reuse the old cluster, possibly remove the .old suffix from $PGDATA/global/pg_control; you can then restart the old cluster. " -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
