Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
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
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
