Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run > > went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but > > every connection attempt fails with > > > psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes > > > The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to, > > but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode > > belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade > > would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a > > useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted. > > Closer investigation shows that in the new database, relfilenode 11683 > belongs to pg_class_oid_index, which explains why it's being touched > during backend startup. It is indeed of zero length, and surely should > not be. I can't resist the guess that something about the recently > added hacks for pg_largeobject_metadata is not right. OK, I will look at this today. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run > > went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but > > every connection attempt fails with > > > psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes > > > The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to, > > but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode > > belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade > > would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a > > useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted. > > Closer investigation shows that in the new database, relfilenode 11683 > belongs to pg_class_oid_index, which explains why it's being touched > during backend startup. It is indeed of zero length, and surely should > not be. I can't resist the guess that something about the recently > added hacks for pg_largeobject_metadata is not right. FYI, I have reproduced the bug here --- researching the cause now. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run
> > went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but
> > every connection attempt fails with
>
> > psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
>
> > The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to,
> > but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode
> > belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade
> > would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a
> > useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted.
>
> Closer investigation shows that in the new database, relfilenode 11683
> belongs to pg_class_oid_index, which explains why it's being touched
> during backend startup. It is indeed of zero length, and surely should
> not be. I can't resist the guess that something about the recently
> added hacks for pg_largeobject_metadata is not right.
I have fixed the bug; patch attached and applied. Seems I introduced
it during my pg_upgrade restructuring and didn't run my full regession
test suite after that. My apologies.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
diff --git a/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c b/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
index dbbc143..0c518a2 100644
--- a/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
+++ b/contrib/pg_upgrade/info.c
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ gen_db_file_maps(DbInfo *old_db, DbInfo *new_db,
for (relnum = 0; relnum < old_db->rel_arr.nrels; relnum++)
{
RelInfo *old_rel = &old_db->rel_arr.rels[relnum];
- RelInfo *new_rel = &old_db->rel_arr.rels[relnum];
+ RelInfo *new_rel = &new_db->rel_arr.rels[relnum];
if (old_rel->reloid != new_rel->reloid)
pg_log(PG_FATAL, "mismatch of relation id: database \"%s\", old relid %d, new relid %d\n",
pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but every connection attempt fails with psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to, but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted. regards, tom lane
Re: pg_upgrade seems a tad broken
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
I wrote: > I tried to do a pg_upgrade from 9.0.x to HEAD today. The pg_upgrade run > went through without complaint, and I could start the postmaster, but > every connection attempt fails with > psql: FATAL: could not read block 0 in file "base/11964/11683": read only 0 of 8192 bytes > The database OID varies depending on which database I try to connect to, > but the filenode doesn't. In the source 9.0 database, this relfilenode > belongs to pg_largeobject_metadata. I'm not sure whether pg_upgrade > would've preserved relfilenode numbering, so that may or may not be a > useful hint as to where the problem is. But in any case it's busted. Closer investigation shows that in the new database, relfilenode 11683 belongs to pg_class_oid_index, which explains why it's being touched during backend startup. It is indeed of zero length, and surely should not be. I can't resist the guess that something about the recently added hacks for pg_largeobject_metadata is not right. regards, tom lane
