On 20 July 2017 at 14:04, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 20 July 2017 at 13:23, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Steps to reproduce -
>>
>> v9.6
>>
>> postgres=# create sequence seq_9166 start 1 increment 1;
>> CREATE SEQUENCE
>> postgres=# create or replace view v3_9166 as select * from seq_9166;
>> CREATE VIEW
>>
>> v10
>>
>> run pg_upgrade , going to fail with this error
>>
>>
>> command: "./pg_restore" --host
>> /home/centos/pg10_14july/postgresql/edbpsql/bin --port 50432 --username edb
>> --exit-on-error --verbose --dbname 'dbname=postgres'
>> "pg_upgrade_dump_13269.custom" >> "pg_upgrade_dump_13269.log" 2>&1
>> pg_restore: connecting to database for restore
>> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject "pg_largeobject"
>> pg_restore: creating pg_largeobject_metadata "pg_largeobject_metadata"
>> pg_restore: creating COMMENT "postgres"
>> pg_restore: creating SCHEMA "public"
>> pg_restore: creating COMMENT "SCHEMA "public""
>> pg_restore: creating TABLE "public.fb17136_tab1"
>> pg_restore: creating SEQUENCE "public.seq_9166"
>> pg_restore: creating VIEW "public.v3_9166"
>> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error while PROCESSING TOC:
>> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 187; 1259 16392 VIEW
>> v3_9166 edb
>> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: column
>> seq_9166.sequence_name does not exist
>> LINE 14: SELECT "seq_9166"."sequence_name",
>> ^
>> Command was:
>> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type oid
>> SELECT
>> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_pg_type_oid('16394'::pg_catalog.oid);
>>
>>
>> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_type array oid
>> SELECT
>> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_array_pg_type_oid('16393'::pg_catalog.oid);
>>
>>
>> -- For binary upgrade, must preserve pg_class oids
>> SELECT
>> pg_catalog.binary_upgrade_set_next_heap_pg_class_oid('16392'::pg_catalog.oid);
>>
>> CREATE VIEW "v3_9166" AS
>> SELECT "seq_9166"."sequence_name",
>> "seq_9166"."last_value",
>> "seq_9166"."start_value",
>> "seq_9166"."increment_by",
>> "seq_9166"."max_value",
>> "seq_9166"."min_value",
>> "seq_9166"."cache_value",
>> "seq_9166"."log_cnt",
>> "seq_9166"."is_cycled",
>> "seq_9166"."is_called"
>> FROM "seq_9166";
>
> This is because sequence_name, start_value, increment_by, max_value,
> min_value, cache_value and is_cycled are no longer output when
> selecting from sequences. Commit
> 1753b1b027035029c2a2a1649065762fafbf63f3 didn't take into account
> upgrading sequences to 10.
Actually, I'm not sure we need to bother fixing this. In the view
creation, * has to be expanded to whatever columns exist at the time
of creating the view, and since most of those columns no longer exist
in v10, there's no way to get the view ported over without rewriting
it. Anything that depends on the output of those columns would be
broken anyway.
Thom