Horton

Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com>
Date: 2022-07-30T00:22:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revert recent changes to 002_pg_upgrade.pl.

  2. Revise test case added in 43746996399541ecb5c7b188725a5f097c15ceae.

  3. Use TRUNCATE to preserve relfilenode for pg_largeobject + index.

  4. Preserve relfilenode of pg_largeobject and its index across pg_upgrade.

  5. Have VACUUM warn on relfrozenxid "in the future".

  6. Set relfrozenxid to oldest extant XID seen by VACUUM.

  7. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  8. Perform a lot more sanity checks when freezing tuples.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Here's a patch that uses a variant of that approach: it just runs
> safe_psql straight up and gets the output, then writes it out to temp
> files if the output doesn't match and we need to run diff. Let me know
> what you think of this.

That looks good to me, although obviously I don't know for sure
if it will make wrasse happy.

> While working on this, I noticed a few other problems. One is that the
> query doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, which it really should, or the
> output won't be stable. And the other is that I think we should be
> testing against the regression database, not the postgres database,
> because it's got a bunch of user tables in it, not just
> pg_largeobject.

Both of those sound like "d'oh" observations to me.  +1

			regards, tom lane