On 3/4/22 23:09, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
> On 04.03.2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> On 3/4/22 20:29, Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>>>> So, we probably have corrupted indexes that were updated since such
>>>> "incomplete" upgrade of ltree.
>>> IIRC pg_upgrade is not expected to upgrade extensions - it keeps the
>>> installed version of the extension, and that's intentional.
>> Yeah, exactly. But this opens up an additional consideration we
>> have to account for: whatever we do needs to work with either 1.1
>> or 1.2 SQL-level versions of the extension.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>
> It becomes clear that ltree upgrade 1.1 => 1.2 is broken, the problem
> is not so much related to PG12 => PG13+ upgrades.
>
Well, it's quite a mess :-(
It very clearly is not just 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade issue, because you can
get a crash with 1.1 after PG12 -> PG13 upgrade, as demonstrated
earlier. So just "fixing" the extension upgrade is no enough.
But as you showed, 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade is broken too.
>
> You can see here another problem: installation of opclass options
> procedure does not invalidate relation's opclass options cache.
>
Seems like that.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company