Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Bradley McLean wrote: > * Mattew T. O'Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020409 15:34]: > > I wouldn't be so quick to assume that almost everyone has upgraded by now. I > > know we have not, at least not in production. > > yeah, what he said. Test, QA and development yes, production, no. The questio

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

* Mattew T. O'Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020409 15:34]: > I wouldn't be so quick to assume that almost everyone has upgraded by now. I > know we have not, at least not in production. yeah, what he said. Test, QA and development yes, production, no. -Brad ---(end of b

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that almost everyone has upgraded by now. I know we have not, at least not in production. On Tuesday 09 April 2002 02:14 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This is a good bug report. I can fix pg_upgrade by adding clog files > containing zeros to pad out to the proper

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

This is a good bug report. I can fix pg_upgrade by adding clog files containing zeros to pad out to the proper length. However, my guess is that most people have already upgrade to 7.2.X, so there isn't much value in fixing it now. I have updated pg_upgrade CVS for 7.3, and hopefully we will h

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since I have done a vacuum, I assume I just keep creating 256k chunks > > until I reach the max xid from the previous release, and delete the > > files prior to the 1gb size limit. > > Keep your hands *off* the existing segments. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since I have done a vacuum, I assume I just keep creating 256k chunks > until I reach the max xid from the previous release, and delete the > files prior to the 1gb size limit. Keep your hands *off* the existing segments. The CLOG code will clean them

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, I can 'dd' /dev/zero to append zeros to pad out the file. How large > > does the clog file get, 1gb? Do I need to rename it at all? > > 256KB per segment. Do *not* rename existing segments. Right, no rename, but I will have t

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, I can 'dd' /dev/zero to append zeros to pad out the file. How large > does the clog file get, 1gb? Do I need to rename it at all? 256KB per segment. Do *not* rename existing segments. regards, tom lane --

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom, any suggestion on how I can increase clog as part of pg_upgrade? > > Append zeroes ... OK, I can 'dd' /dev/zero to append zeros to pad out the file. How large does the clog file get, 1gb? Do I need to rename it at all? --

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom, any suggestion on how I can increase clog as part of pg_upgrade? Append zeroes ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with th

Re: [HACKERS] Strange problem when upgrading to 7.2 with pg_upgrade.

Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I suspect that pg_upgrade has neglected to make sure the clog is long > >> enough. > > > Here is the code that sets the transaction id. Tom, does pg_resetxlog > > handle pg_clog file creation properly? > > pg_resetxlog doesn't kno