On 30 November 2015 at 17:01, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:51:15PM +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
> > Are you able to compile from 9.4 git head and test that? It seems
> > dumping inheriting constraints from parents has not worked properly
> for
> > some time.
> >
> >
> > Do I need to get the latest/head 9.2 or the latest/head 9.4 or both?
> For what
> > it is worth I just tried after upgrading to the latest released 9.2 (and
> same
> > 9.45) and that didn't work :-(
>
> You actually need non-released 9.4.X code that is in pg_dump, and we use
> 9.4 pg_dump to dump the 9.2 database.
>
> > I should certainly be able to compile from source. But the upgrade to
> 9.4 is
> > by far not high on my priority stack (other than maybe some speed wins
> there is
> > nothing in 9.4 that we are eager for, there are some niceties but I can
> happily
> > live without all of them for years) and has already consumed way more
> time than
> > I had scheduled for it. So I'll return to focus on other work for at
> least
> > this week and maybe more depending on how that work goes.
> >
> > Thanks to everyone I'll certainly update this thread if / when I have
> more time
> > to devote to this.
>
> The simplest solution is to wait for 9.4.6 to be released and test that.
>
>
I just tried this again. This time from 9.2.17 to 9.5.4 and pg_upgrade
chokes with this:
[root@igm-dbc-001 upgrade-logs]# tail pg_upgrade_dump_16416.log
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: syntax error
at or near "=>"
LINE 1: CREATE OPERATOR => (
^
Command was: CREATE OPERATOR => (
PROCEDURE = "tconvert",
LEFTARG = "text",
RIGHTARG = "text"
);
-- For binary upgrade, hand...
Any pointers are appreciated.
Thanks,
Bene
> --
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Roman grave inscription +
>
