On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:18:55AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > >> > OK, this was very helpful. I found out that there is a bug in current >> > 9.0.X, 9.1.X, and HEAD that I introduced recently when I excluded temp >> > tables. (The bug is not in any released version of pg_upgrade.) The >> > attached, applied patches should fix it for you. I assume you are >> > running 9.0.X, and not 9.0.4. >> >> pg_upgrade worked. Now I'm doing reindex and later on vacuumdb -az. >> >> will keep you posted. > > FYI, this pg_upgrade bug exists in PG 9.1RC1, but not in earlier betas. > Users can either wait for 9.1 RC2 or Final, or use the patch I posted. > The bug is not in 9.0.4 and will not be in 9.0.5.
Based on subsequent discussion on this thread, it sounds like something is still broken. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
