On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:27:21PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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...
If a concurrent index creation was happening during the check,
pg_upgrade --check would fail. I don't think there is any indication if
the index is failed, or in process.
That is a good argument for _not_ throwing an error because index
creation is more of an intermediate state.
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: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-12-07 14:23:09|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|
|Previous:||From: MauMau||Date: 2012-12-07 14:21:32|
|Subject: Re: Serious problem: media recovery fails after system or PostgreSQL crash|