Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade failed if view is based on sequence

On 20 July 2017 at 13:23, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Steps to reproduce -
>
> v9.6
>
> postgres=# create sequence seq_9166 start 1 increment 1;
> CREATE SEQUENCE
> postgres=# create or replace view v3_9166 as select * from seq_9166;
> CREATE VIEW
>
> v10
>
> run pg_upgrade , going to fail with this error
>
>
> command: "./pg_restore" --host
> /home/centos/pg10_14july/postgresql/edbpsql/bin --port 50432 --username edb
> --exit-on-error --verbose --dbname 'dbname=postgres'
> "pg_upgrade_dump_13269.custom" >> "pg_upgrade_dump_13269.log" 2>&1
> pg_restore: connecting to database for restore
> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject "pg_largeobject"
> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject_metadata "pg_largeobject_metadata"
> pg_restore: creating COMMENT "postgres"
> pg_restore: creating SCHEMA "public"
> pg_restore: creating COMMENT "SCHEMA "public""
> pg_restore: creating TABLE "public.fb17136_tab1"
> pg_restore: creating SEQUENCE "public.seq_9166"
> pg_restore: creating VIEW "public.v3_9166"
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error while PROCESSING TOC:
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 187; 1259 16392 VIEW
> v3_9166 edb
> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR:  column
> seq_9166.sequence_name does not exist
> LINE 14:  SELECT "seq_9166"."sequence_name",
>                  ^
>     Command was:
> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type oid
> SELECT
> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_pg_type_oid('16394'::pg_catalog.oid);
>
>
> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type array oid
> SELECT
> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_array_pg_type_oid('16393'::pg_catalog.oid);
>
>
> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids
> SELECT
> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_heap_pg_class_oid('16392'::pg_catalog.oid);
>
> CREATE VIEW "v3_9166" AS
>  SELECT "seq_9166"."sequence_name",
>     "seq_9166"."last_value",
>     "seq_9166"."start_value",
>     "seq_9166"."increment_by",
>     "seq_9166"."max_value",
>     "seq_9166"."min_value",
>     "seq_9166"."cache_value",
>     "seq_9166"."log_cnt",
>     "seq_9166"."is_cycled",
>     "seq_9166"."is_called"
>    FROM "seq_9166";

This is because sequence_name, start_value, increment_by, max_value,
min_value, cache_value and is_cycled are no longer output when
selecting from sequences.  Commit
1753b1b027035029c2a2a1649065762fafbf63f3 didn't take into account
upgrading sequences to 10.

Thom