Re: missing toast table for pg_policy
От | John Naylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJVSVGU8nWxnW3PEKPjH2Ve_R5K+trowFvj6Z2WCmJwgkWGkAA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: missing toast table for pg_policy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/17/18, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > I was just having a second look at this patch, and did a bit more tests > with pg_upgrade which passed. > > +-- 2. pg_largeobject and pg_largeobject_metadata, to avoid problems > +-- with pg_upgrade > John, what's actually the failure that was seen here? It would be nice > to see this patch committed but the reason here should be more > explicit about why this cannot happen. I'll copy what I wrote upthread last month: On 6/19/18, John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/20/18, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Regression tests of pg_upgrade are failing as follows: >> New cluster database "postgres" is not empty >> Failure, exiting >> + rm -rf /tmp/pg_upgrade_check-Xn0ZLe > > I looked into this briefly. The error comes from > check_new_cluster_is_empty() in src/bin/pg_upgrade/check.c, which > contains the comment > > /* pg_largeobject and its index should be skipped */ I didn't dig deeper, since TOAST and the large object facility are mutually exclusive so there shouldn't be a toast table here anyway. Hope this helps. -John Naylor
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: