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
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Rowley||Date: 2012-12-07 03:25:46|
|Subject: Re: Functional dependency in GROUP BY through JOINs|
|Previous:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2012-12-07 03:07:34|
|Subject: Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE)|