Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
| От | Groshev Andrey |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1239751355981684@web8h.yandex.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com> writes: > >> Groshev Andrey wrote: >> Mismatch of relation names: database "database", old rel public.lob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ_pkey, new relpublic.plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: