On 9/5/19 2:57 PM, Kevin Brannen wrote:
I think I need some help to understand what’s going here because I can’t
figure it out and google isn’t helping…
This is for Pg 9.6.5. (Yes, we are upgrading to 12.x in a few months, or
so the plan is.) Pg code came from the community and we compiled it with
no changes. This is on Centos 6.7, though I think the OS doesn’t matter.
I’ve found that when we do a pg_restore, that sometimes we get “errors”.
I quote that because it turns out they’re really only warnings we can
ignore, but when you check the return code ($?) after pg_restore, you
get a non-zero value.
We’re calling pg_restore like:
$PGPATH/pg_restore -jobs=$NCPU --dbname=x .
FWIW, the backup was created with:
$PGPATH/pg_dump --clean --create --format=d --jobs=$NCPU --file=$EXP
--dbname=x
The options you are adding for --clean, --create only have meaning for
plain text dumps. If you want those actions to occur on the restore
then add them to the pg_restore line. Though if you are going to create
a new database it will inherit objects from template1(as you found
below), assuming you have not set WITH TEMPLATE to something else.
The issue I’m seeing is:
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error while PROCESSING TOC:
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 3605; 2753 18784
OPERATOR FAMILY gin__int_ops postgres
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: operator
family "gin__int_ops" for access method "gin" already exists
Command was: CREATE OPERATOR FAMILY gin__int_ops USING gin;
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 3606; 2753 18806
OPERATOR FAMILY gist__int_ops postgres
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: operator
family "gist__int_ops" for access method "gist" already exists
Command was: CREATE OPERATOR FAMILY gist__int_ops USING gist;
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 3607; 2753 18829
OPERATOR FAMILY gist__intbig_ops postgres
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: ERROR: operator
family "gist__intbig_ops" for access method "gist" already exists
Command was: CREATE OPERATOR FAMILY gist__intbig_ops USING gist;
Those operators come from the *intarray* extension. Looking into the
toc.dat, I can see entries like:
^@3079^@^E^@^@^@16441^@^H^@^@^@intarray^@
^@^@^@EXTENSION^@^B^@^@^@^@<^@^@^@CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS
intarray WITH SCHEMA common;
^A^A^@^@^@^@^F^@^@^@public^A^A^@^@^@^@^G^@^@^@nmsroot^@^E^@^@^@false^@^B^@^@^@15^@^A^@^@^@3^A^A^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^U^N^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^D^@^@^@2753^@^E^@^@^@18784^@^L^@^@^@gin__int_ops^@^O^@^@^@OPERATOR
FAMILY^@^B^@^@^@^@/^@^@^@CREATE OPERATOR FAMILY gin__int_ops USING gin;
…same sort of thing for the other 2…
Those seem reasonable to me. It seems the problem is with the CREATE
OPERATOR as there is not “if not exists” for it. Considering we created
a new DB for the restore and went with --create to pg_restore, there
should be nothing in the DB to create a conflict, yet somehow it already
exists!
Interestingly, this doesn’t happen all the time. It seems that once we
can get a restore in, that it never happens again in any subsequent
restores. My theory for this is that the databases (or really installs)
where this happens started are an earlier version that was pg_upgrade’d
(probably from 9.5 or even from 9.3). But I can take the shell script
that runs this, turn off checking for the return code from pg_restore
and we’ve found no issues with the DB (hence I can treat them like
warnings). Of course, the downside there is that if I always ignore the
return code from pg_restore, how do I catch real errors? 😊
If it matters, here’s the version we’re dealing with for intarray:
# \dx
List of installed extensions
Name | Version | Schema |
Description
--------------------+---------+------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------
intarray | 1.2 | common | functions, operators, and
index support for 1-D arrays of integers
If there is a logical reason for this, I’d appreciate an explanation so
I can deal with it properly. If more research is needed, I can do that
and pointers as to what to look for would be great. I have a VM and a
backup I can restore & test as many times as needed.
Last minute discovery and thought. It just occurred to me to look in
template1 and intarray is in there. Is it possible that gives me a
pre-existing extension & operators and therefore the source of the
conflict? If so, is the solution as simple as deleting that extension
from template1? In fact, should I delete all the extensions from
template1 that it shows as being in the public schema?
Thanks!
Kevin
This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail
messages attached to it, may contain confidential information. If you
are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us
by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
