Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mié sep 28 13:48:28 -0300 2011: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, so it fails for all tables and you are using the newest version. > > Thanks for all your work. I am now guessing that pg_upgrade 9.1.X is > > just broken on Windows. > > > > Perhaps the variables set by pg_upgrade_support.so are not being passed > > into the server variables? I know pg_upgrade 9.0.X worked on Windows > > because EnterpriseDB did extensive testing recently on this. Has > > anyone used pg_upgrade 9.1.X on Windows? > > OK, I have a new theory. postmaster.c processes the -b > (binary-upgrade) flag by setting a C variable: > > case 'b': > /* Undocumented flag used for binary upgrades */ > IsBinaryUpgrade = true; > break; > > I am now wondering if this variable is not being passed down to the > sessions during Win32's EXEC_BACKEND. Looking at the other postmaster > settings, these set GUC variables, which I assume are passed down. Can > someone confirm this?
Well, you could compile it with -DEXEC_BACKEND to test it for yourself. > How should this be fixed? Maybe it should be part of struct BackendParameters. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
