Rural Hunter <ruralhun...@gmail.com> writes:
> äº2012å¹´9æ17æ¥ 9:48:58,Tom Laneåå°:
>> I wonder whether you dropped and recreated the information_schema in
>> the lifetime of this database? We have recommended doing that in the
>> past, IIRC. Could such a thing have confused pg_dump?
> No, I have never manually re-created the table.
I think you must have, because the query output shows that sql_features,
its rowtype, and the information_schema all have OIDs much larger than
they would have had in a virgin installation. The large relfilenode
could have been explained by a VACUUM FULL, but the other OIDs wouldn't
have been changed by that.
> This is the first time
> I see the name. But I'm not sure other things I installed before
> recreated it or not, such as pg_buffercache etc. One more thing, is
> this a hidden table? I can see it with '\d
> information_schema.sql_features' but it's not in the list of '\d'.
That just means that information_schema is not in your search_path.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
