On 2012-12-07 09:21:58 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
There should be a lock on the table + index if the creation is in
> That is a good argument for _not_ throwing an error because index
> creation is more of an intermediate state.
Uhm. If pg_upgrade is actually running its definitely not an
intermediate state anymore...
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hari Babu||Date: 2012-12-07 14:26:12|
|Subject: Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-12-07 14:23:09|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|