Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:48:59AM -0700, Smitha Pamujula wrote: > This error will go away only if I install the new json_build94. > > I was under the impression that we dont need to get the json_build > libraries for 94.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

Thank you Bruce. So far installing it before have been working well so we will continue with that plan. I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as it would have helped us save some time understanding why it was failing and why it was looking for json_build. On Mon, Aug 31,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Smitha Pamujula wrote: > Thank you Bruce. So far installing it before have been working well so we will > continue with that plan.  > > I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as it would have > helped us save some time understanding

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as it would have >> helped us save some time understanding why it was failing and why it was >> looking for json_build. > > The problem is that this is a rare

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On 08/31/2015 07:21 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as it would have helped us save some time understanding why it was failing and why it was looking for json_build.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:28:00PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 08/31/2015 07:21 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > >On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >>>I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as it would > >>>have > >>>helped

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

pg_upgrade skipping the modules makes the most sense to me as well. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:28:00PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 08/31/2015 07:21 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > > >On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:20

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On 08/31/2015 07:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:28:00PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/31/2015 07:21 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I think it would help if its noted somewhere in the document as

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 08/31/2015 07:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Still, I don't know how many people are doing this, but the right fix is >> to get the names of the modules that are superceeded and tell pg_upgrade >> to skip them. > I don't think this knowledge

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > In any case, there is plenty of precedent for hard-coding knowledge about > specific version updates into pg_upgrade. The question here is whether > it's feasible to handle extensions that way. I think we could reasonably >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 07/13/2015 01:12 PM, Smitha Pamujula wrote: Yes. I have checked that the extension didn't exist in any of the databases. I used \dx to see if there was json_build was listed and i didnt see any. Is that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On 07/13/2015 01:12 PM, Smitha Pamujula wrote: Yes. I have checked that the extension didn't exist in any of the databases. I used \dx to see if there was json_build was listed and i didnt see any. Is that sufficient to check its existence. I am about to do another testing in a few minutes on

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

Yes. I have checked that the extension didn't exist in any of the databases. I used \dx to see if there was json_build was listed and i didnt see any. Is that sufficient to check its existence. I am about to do another testing in a few minutes on a different machine. I will capture before/after

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:05 PM, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote: On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Smitha Pamujula smitha.pamuj...@iovation.com wrote: Your installation references loadable libraries that are missing from the new installation. You can add these libraries to the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com writes: My co-workers tell me that pg_upgrade told them to drop the colnames and hostname extensions before upgrading from 9.3 to 9.4. Really? I see nothing in the source code that would print any such advice. There *is* a check on whether .so libraries

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

Tom, I just tested and yes that worked. Once we have the new library for the hostname, pg_upgrade is not complaining about the hostname extension. Another thing we found is this. We needed to drop json_build extension before the upgrade. However the upgrade fails with the following error and the

[HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

Hackers, My co-workers tell me that pg_upgrade told them to drop the colnames and hostname extensions before upgrading from 9.3 to 9.4. Fortunately, Postgres had not recorded any dependencies on functions from these extensions (not sure why not, since we do user them, but for the moment

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade + Extensions

On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Smitha Pamujula smitha.pamuj...@iovation.com wrote: I just tested and yes that worked. Once we have the new library for the hostname, pg_upgrade is not complaining about the hostname extension. Great, thank you Smitha -- and Tom for the pointer. Your