* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:45:11PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Or preserve it as-is. I don't really like the 'make them fix it'
> > option, as a user could run into that in the middle of a planned upgrade
> > that had been tested and never had that come up.
> They would get the warning during pg_upgrade --check, of course.
Sure, if they happened to have a concurrent index creation going when
they ran the check... But what if they didn't and it only happened to
happen during the actual pg_upgrade? I'm still not thrilled with this
idea of making the user have to abort in the middle to address something
that, really, isn't a big deal to just preserve and deal with later...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2012-12-07 03:27:48|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|
|Previous:||From: David Rowley||Date: 2012-12-07 03:25:46|
|Subject: Re: Functional dependency in GROUP BY through JOINs|