Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Groshev Andrey <greenx(at)yandex(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
Date: 2012-12-20 04:12:23
Message-ID: 20121220041223.GD20015@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:35:11PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There is another table "ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ" (without ^lob.)
> > It is referenced by a foreign key ("rlob(dot)ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ-(at)Файл")
> > But as I understand it, the problem with the primary key.
>
> Does the old database have a table with prefix "plob.", called
> plob.ВерсияВнешнегоДокумента$Документ?
>
> If not, if you do pg_dumpall --schema-only --binary-upgrade, is there a
> table with that name mentioned?

Also, when you say "rlob" above, is the 'r' a Latin letter sound that
would look like a Russian 'p' in the error message? (In Cyrillic, a
Latin-looking p sounds like Latin-sounding r.)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Groshev Andrey 2012-12-20 04:55:16 Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-12-20 03:35:11 Re: [GENERAL] trouble with pg_upgrade 9.0 -> 9.1

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2012-12-20 04:52:43 Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master()
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2012-12-20 04:12:02 Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune