Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> How about backpatching patch 1 all the way back, and putting the others >>> in 9.6? >> Why would we do that? It seems very odd to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix > >> and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7, > >> or decide that

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix >> and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7, >> or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix > and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7, > or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to 9.6 only. I kinda lean > towards the last alternative. How about backpatching

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Any thoughts what to do with this? We could decide that it's a bug fix > and backpatch, or decide that it's a new feature and delay till 9.7, > or decide that it's a minor bug fix and add it to 9.6 only. I kinda lean >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> I'm happy with the solution that pg_upgrade has a step in the check >> stage that says "catalog XYZ has a toast table but shouldn't, aborting >> the upgrade". (Well, not _happy_, but at least it's a lot easier to >> diagnose). > I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-02 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> A customer of ours was unable to pg_upgrade a database, with this error: old and new databases "postgres" have a mismatched number

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > A customer of ours was unable to pg_upgrade a database, with this error: > > > > old and new databases "postgres" have a mismatched number of relations > > Failure, exiting > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > A customer of ours was unable to pg_upgrade a database, with this error: > > old and new databases "postgres" have a mismatched number of relations > Failure, exiting > > After some research, it turned out that

[HACKERS] pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject

2016-05-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hi, A customer of ours was unable to pg_upgrade a database, with this error: old and new databases "postgres" have a mismatched number of relations Failure, exiting After some research, it turned out that pg_largeobject had acquired a toast table. After some more research, we determined