Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>,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 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
progress.
> 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...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
