Body: <p>I started an upgrade from 5.28.3 but it crashed while updating to 5.29 alpha1, and <a href="https://pastebin.com/SH13B6PX" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this traceback</a> was in the log.  I haven't seen this problem elsewhere on SE, and am not sure how to fix.  Can anyone help?  This particular system (using Drupal) has been running since 2013 and I've not had any problems upgrading until now.  Relationships are used a fair bit in the system, which is where this problem seems to have occurred.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-13T17:07:06.323Z
Comments.Text: Looks like its the relationship cache table so simply truncating it should mean the upgrade can at least run through. You may have some historical data that is invalid i.e. relationships to contacts who no longer exist. If you have access to the DB then a truncate, if not then perhaps try and cc and see if the cache table is empty. The cache table in question is civicrm_relationship_cache
Comments.UserDisplayName: Parvez Saleh
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-13T17:17:13.557Z
Comments.Text: That table civicrm _relationship_cache is a temporary table created by the upgrade - I guess I could try and recreate it, fixing the issues, until it works
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andy Clark
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-13T21:22:45.860Z
Comments.Text: Is this the same as https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/a/37757/181? The table isn't temporary - it's a table introduced for use by apiv4/search kit.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Demerit
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-13T21:36:54.300Z
Comments.Text: Looks the same, thanks for the pointer
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andy Clark
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-14T14:06:08.490Z
Comments.Text: Yes, this is exactly the problem - guess I should have seen it.  I ran the SQL and had 1770 orphans.  Poor little things.  So I have flagged this as a duplicate
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andy Clark
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-14T19:06:32.787Z
Comments.Text: Almost certainly, but I won't be rerunning the upgrade for maybe a week when I'll know 100%
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andy Clark
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-02-21T15:43:55.450Z
Comments.Text: Yes, the upgrade went through so that answer was good - I upvoted it - thanks.  But ran into another problem with a dashboard crash, so had to restore back to 5.28.3 again!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andy Clark
Tags: <upgrade>
Title: 5.28 upgrade failed at 5.29 beta upgrade - how to fix?
ThreadText: # 5.28 upgrade failed at 5.29 beta upgrade - how to fix?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-13)
  
  I started an upgrade from 5.28.3 but it crashed while updating to 5.29 alpha1, and [this traceback](https://pastebin.com/SH13B6PX) was in the log. I haven't seen this problem elsewhere on SE, and am not sure how to fix. Can anyone help? This particular system (using Drupal) has been running since 2013 and I've not had any problems upgrading until now. Relationships are used a fair bit in the system, which is where this problem seems to have occurred.
  
  **Tags:** upgrade
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Looks like its the relationship cache table so simply truncating it should mean the upgrade can at least run through. You may have some historical data that is invalid i.e. relationships to contacts who no longer exist. If you have access to the DB then a truncate, if not then perhaps try and cc and see if the cache table is empty. The cache table in question is civicrm_relationship_cache  
  > **username_0**: That table civicrm _relationship_cache is a temporary table created by the upgrade - I guess I could try and recreate it, fixing the issues, until it works  
  > **username_2**: Is this the same as https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/a/37757/181? The table isn't temporary - it's a table introduced for use by apiv4/search kit.  
  > **username_0**: Looks the same, thanks for the pointer  
  > **username_0**: Yes, this is exactly the problem - guess I should have seen it.  I ran the SQL and had 1770 orphans.  Poor little things.  So I have flagged this as a duplicate  
  > **username_0**: Almost certainly, but I won't be rerunning the upgrade for maybe a week when I'll know 100%  
  > **username_0**: Yes, the upgrade went through so that answer was good - I upvoted it - thanks.  But ran into another problem with a dashboard crash, so had to restore back to 5.28.3 again!  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  