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. +
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 |
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 |