Yes Adrian, That is correct (upgraded 9.2 to 9.3 via pg_dump), more than happy to provide pg devs with the actual db if needed. Pretty sure the target db is good, especially since we just dumped a single db (did not do a dump_all) On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/25/2014 04:32 PM, Sam Saffron wrote: >> >> Thanks heaps Tom, >> >> I can confirm corrupt db upgrades fine with pg_dump. Was wondering if >> there are any plans to add a --no-validate to pg_upgrade, since the >> crash seems only to happen during validation. > > > Hmm, so I am still unclear on this. The 'corrupt' database is the one you > upgraded away from or to? If to I am not sure you have solved anything. For > the sake of discussion I am assuming you did a pg_dump on the 9.2 instance > and a restore on the 9.3 instance. Is this correct? > > >> >> Cheers >> Sam >> >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Sam Saffron <sam.saffron@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>> Why would >>>> "ERROR: operator does not exist: name !~ unknown" >>>> Come up ? >>> >>> >>> It's hard to explain that as anything except corrupted system catalogs >>> in your existing database :-(. If you were really lucky, reindexing >>> pg_operator would fix it; but since pg_operator is usually pretty static, >>> it seems unlikely that it suffered index corruption. >>> >>>> Any way to work around this? >>> >>> >>> Rather than relying on pg_upgrade, you could try using pg_dump(all) >>> to extract the data. With some luck, pg_dump wouldn't be affected by >>> whatever has happened to the pg_operator catalog. >>> >>> regards, tom lane >> >> >> > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
