Mismatch of relation names: pg_toast.pg_toast_nnn during pg_upgrade from 8.4 to 9.1
Hi -
I've had no problem upgrading copies our qa databases (which are
backed up and restored with pg_dump/pg_restore) but have run into the
same problem each time I try to upgrade a copy of our production
database (backed up and restored via PITR). After verifying a
successful restore and vacuum analyze, I ran a successful pg_upgrade
check run with:
pg_upgrade -b /usr/local/pgsql-8.4.2/bin -B
/usr/local/pgsql-9.1.0/bin -c -d /data/pgsql/prod-84 -D
/data/pgsql/prod-91 -G /home/postgres/pg_upgrade_prod.check.debug -k
-l /home/postgres/pg_upgrade_prod.check.log -p 5435 -P 5436 -v
Then when I ran the actual pg_upgrade:
pg_upgrade -b /usr/local/pgsql-8.4.2/bin -B
/usr/local/pgsql-9.1.0/bin -d /data/pgsql/prod-84 -D
/data/pgsql/prod-91 -G /home/postgres/pg_upgrade_prod.debug -k -l
/home/postgres/pg_upgrade_prod.log -p 5435 -P 5436 -v
It fails at this stage:
Restoring user relation files
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
Failure, exiting
These are the log files generated:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 0 Sep 27 12:47
pg_upgrade_prod.check.debug
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 8524 Sep 27 13:27 pg_upgrade_prod.check.log
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 0 Sep 27 13:31 pg_upgrade_prod.debug
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 2374 Sep 27 14:12
pg_upgrade_dump_globals.sql
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 257696 Sep 27 14:12 pg_upgrade_dump_db.sql
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 260092 Sep 27 14:12 pg_upgrade_dump_all.sql
-rw-rw-r-- 1 postgres postgres 75413 Sep 27 14:12 pg_upgrade_prod.log
I don't see any helpful (to me) explanation within them, but after
some searching ran across this comment in the relevant section of
source:
00059 /*
00060 * In pre-8.4, TOAST table names change during
CLUSTER; in >= 8.4
00061 * TOAST relation names always use heap table oids,
hence we cannot
00062 * check relation names when upgrading from pre-8.4.
00063 */
At this point I still don't understand the underlying issue. Our
databases were migrated in place (linked) with pg_migrator from 8.3 to
8.4 could that be the cause or related? Where would you recommend I
look to discover a cause and hopefully a solution?
Thanks in advance,
Jamie
On tis, 2011-09-27 at 16:19 -0700, Jamie Fox wrote:
It fails at this stage:
Restoring user relation files
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
Failure, exiting
This issue is known and a fix is currently being discussed.
Thanks, I'm following the thread "pg_upgrade automatic testing" and
will try the patch just detailed there.
Jamie
Show quoted text
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On tis, 2011-09-27 at 16:19 -0700, Jamie Fox wrote:
It fails at this stage:
Restoring user relation files
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
Failure, exitingThis issue is known and a fix is currently being discussed.
Jamie Fox wrote:
Thanks, I'm following the thread "pg_upgrade automatic testing" and
will try the patch just detailed there.
I have applied the patch to head and 9.1.X. We still have a win32 bug
to fix. It is a shame I was not able to fix these before 9.1.1 was
released. :-(
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On tis, 2011-09-27 at 16:19 -0700, Jamie Fox wrote:
It fails at this stage:
? ? Restoring user relation files
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
? ? Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
? ? Failure, exitingThis issue is known and a fix is currently being discussed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
I regret that as a part-timer recently brought back on here I didn't
get an opportunity to test this earlier. The upgrade with the patch
worked fine on my first attempt.
Thanks again,
Jamie
Show quoted text
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Jamie Fox wrote:
Thanks, I'm following the thread "pg_upgrade automatic testing" and
will try the patch just detailed there.I have applied the patch to head and 9.1.X. We still have a win32 bug
to fix. It is a shame I was not able to fix these before 9.1.1 was
released. :-(---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On tis, 2011-09-27 at 16:19 -0700, Jamie Fox wrote:
It fails at this stage:
? ? Restoring user relation files
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
? ? Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
? ? Failure, exitingThis issue is known and a fix is currently being discussed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Jamie Fox wrote:
I regret that as a part-timer recently brought back on here I didn't
get an opportunity to test this earlier. The upgrade with the patch
worked fine on my first attempt.
Great. Thanks for the report, and sorry for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again,
Jamie
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Jamie Fox wrote:
Thanks, I'm following the thread "pg_upgrade automatic testing" and
will try the patch just detailed there.I have applied the patch to head and 9.1.X. ?We still have a win32 bug
to fix. ?It is a shame I was not able to fix these before 9.1.1 was
released. ?:-(---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On tis, 2011-09-27 at 16:19 -0700, Jamie Fox wrote:
It fails at this stage:
? ? Restoring user relation files
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2613 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12570
? ? linking /data/pgsql/prod-84/base/11564/2683 to
/data/pgsql/prod-91/base/12698/12572
? ? Mismatch of relation names: database "prod1", old rel
pg_toast.pg_toast_54542379, new rel pg_toast.pg_toast_16735
? ? Failure, exitingThis issue is known and a fix is currently being discussed.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers--
?Bruce Momjian ?<bruce@momjian.us> ? ? ? ?http://momjian.us
?EnterpriseDB ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://enterprisedb.com?+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +