Hi, Thank you for your quick reply. The problem with changing these to type 'text' with alter table is that, amongst my list of table using the data type "name", I have "_oxrsaero.vactables.relname" which is a COMPOSITE TYPE and according to the Postgres 8.3 documentation I cannot ALTER the attributes of a COMPOSITE TYPE.
Also I don't think that DROP and RECREATE "_oxrsaero.vactables.relname " will be a good idea since some Slony functions might be using it. So any idea... Regards Rose. On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Steve Singer <[email protected]>wrote: > On 11-04-26 02:43 PM, Rose Nancy wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am using Postgres 8.3 and slony 2.0.6. >> I have tried to upgrade Postgres 8.3 to Postgres 9.0.3 using PG_UPGRADE >> and I come across this issue . >> >> Checking for invalid 'name' user columns fatal >> >> | Your installation contains the "name" data type in >> | user tables. This data type changed its internal >> | alignment between your old and new clusters so this >> | cluster cannot currently be upgraded. You can >> | remove the problem tables and restart the migration. >> | A list of the problem columns is in the file: >> | /opt/tables_using_name.txt >> >> > I am wondering if these tables really should be using type text instead of > name. With respect to the 'name' data type the postgresql manual says "The > name type exists only for the storage of identifiers in the internal system > catalogs and is not intended for use by the general user." > > The slony tables aren't part of the system catalog, they are only storing > the same type of information as the catalog. Slony generally tries to live > by the same rules as other postgresql extensions (I'm ignoring the fact that > prior to 2.0 it munged pg_class). Maybe we should change these for 2.1? > (I'm not sure how keen I am about changing column definitions for 2.0.7) > > I suspect your upgrade will work if you change these to type 'text' with > alter table, then upgrade then change them back to name. You will also need > to use the 'UPDATE FUNCTIONS' command post upgrade to make sure the v84/90 > versions of slony functions get installed instead of the v83 versions. (I > haven't tried this procedure, there might be other issues I don't see) > > > >
_______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
