Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not 100% sure this is a pg_upgrade bug or a pg_dump
> --binary-upgrade one, or some other thing, but at this point I'm
> fairly certain there's something wrong in one of them.
The symptoms you're mentioning suggest two bugs: (1) it's not clear
why binary upgrade should treat a matview's relfrozenxid differently
from a regular table's; (2) independently of that, it sounds like REFRESH
MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY is somehow preventing advancement of the
matview's relfrozenxid in the source DB.
> I just tried to pg_upgrade a database from 9.5 to 10.2. I took a
> snapshot off a replica, promoted it, and then did the pg_upgrade there
> (to avoid breaking our production server).
And that brings replication behavior into the mix, too :-(. I'd
suggest seeing if you can duplicate these problems without any
replication involved.
regards, tom lane