hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:18:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, this was very helpful. I found out that there is a bug in current > > > > 9.0.X, 9.1.X, and HEAD that I introduced recently when I excluded temp > > > > tables. (The bug is not in any released version of pg_upgrade.) The > > > > attached, applied patches should fix it for you. I assume you are > > > > running 9.0.X, and not 9.0.4. > > > > > > pg_upgrade worked. Now I'm doing reindex and later on vacuumdb -az. > > > > > > will keep you posted. > > > > FYI, this pg_upgrade bug exists in PG 9.1RC1, but not in earlier betas. > > Users can either wait for 9.1 RC2 or Final, or use the patch I posted. > > The bug is not in 9.0.4 and will not be in 9.0.5. > > I assume you mean the bug that caused pg_upgrade to fail.
Yes. > But there still is (existing in 9.0.4 too) bug which causes vacuum to > fail. Yes. We need to find the cause of that new bug. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
