From: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump: schema with OID 58698 does not exist |
Date: | 2011-02-09 19:23:19 |
Message-ID: | 20110209192319.GA36632@mr-paradox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:15:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
- David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> writes:
- > Ok, I found the bad entries, 2 tables a sequence and 2 primary key indexes are associated
- > with the wrong (invalid / nonexistant ) schema.
-
- > However, there are correct entries for those objects as well. So these are definitly just dangling references.
-
- Please be more specific. What are the bad entries exactly (what values,
- in which columns of what catalogs) and what do you mean by "there are
- correct entries as well"?
pg_class has 5 relname entries associated with a relnamespace (58698) that doesn't exist in pg_namespace.
Those relname entries corrispond to 2 tables and their PKs and a sequence (for the PK of one of the tables).
Those objects do have valid entries in pg_class as well (they point to a different relnamespace)
Is that more clear?
- > When we do a data "refresh" here, i do a drop <schema> cascade; in the DB and then
- > pg_restore -Fc --disable-triggers
-
- Hm. We have seen occasional reports of drop cascade failing to delete
- all the dependent objects, but it's pretty hard to see how that could
- happen ...
I agree!
Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2011-02-09 22:12:01 | problematic view definition |
Previous Message | prakashn | 2011-02-09 19:16:44 | Relative ordering in array aggregation |