| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Date: | 2012-12-07 01:16:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20121207011636.GP30893@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 07:53:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Yes, I thought of not dumping it. The problem is that we don't delete
> > the index when it fails, so I assumed we didn't want to lose the index
> > creation information. I need to understand why we did that.
>
> Because CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can't drop the index if it's already
> failed. It's not because we want to do that, it's an implementation
> restriction of the horrid kluge that is CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Well, what is the logic that pg_dump dumps it then, even in
non-binary-upgrade mode?
--
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 | Jeff Davis | 2012-12-07 01:31:09 | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-12-07 01:12:27 | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |