| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 03:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20121207030811.GC31540@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:06:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> >> Making the user fix it seems much more sensible to me. Otherwise I
> >> suspect we'll find users who get strangely surprised when they can
> >> no longer find any trace of an expected index in their upgraded
> >> database.
>
> > Or preserve it as-is.
>
> To do that, we would have to add an option to CREATE INDEX to create it
> in an invalid state. Which is stupid...
I think we would have have pg_dump --binary-upgrade issue an UPDATE to
the system catalogs to mark it as invalid.
--
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 | David Rowley | 2012-12-07 03:25:46 | Re: Functional dependency in GROUP BY through JOINs |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-12-07 03:07:34 | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |