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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +