Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090714002858.GR4930@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after
pg_migrator
Re: [GENERAL] large object does not exist after pg_migrator |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Jamie Fox wrote: > > > > > > I can also see that the pg_largeobject table is different, in the pg_restore > > > > version the Rows (estimated) is 316286 and Rows (counted) is the same, in > > > > the pg_migrator version the Rows (counted) is only 180507. > > > > > Wow, I didn't test large objects specifically, and I am confused why > > > there would be a count discrepancy. I will need to do some research > > > unless someone else can guess about the cause. > > > > Maybe pg_largeobject is not getting frozen? > > That would explain the change in count, but I thought we froze > _everything_, and had to. After a quick chat with Bruce it was determined that we don't freeze anything (it would be horrid for downtime if we did so in pg_migrator; and it would be useless if ran anywhere else). What we do is migrate pg_clog from the old cluster to the new. So never mind that hypothesis. Bruce noticed that the pg_dump/pg_migrator combo is failing to restore pg_largeobject's relfrozenxid. We're not sure how this is causing the errors Jamie is seeing, because what I think should happen is that scans of the table should fail with failures to open pg_clog files such-and-such, but not missing tuples ... -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: