On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:46:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On balance I am coming around to support the "just throw an error if
> >> there are any invalid indexes" position. Adding extra complication in
> >> pg_dump and pg_upgrade to handle ignoring them doesn't seem like a good
> >> idea --- for one thing, it will evidently weaken the strength of the
> >> same-number-of-relations cross-check.
> > The check would remain the same --- the change would be to prevent
> > invalid indexes from being considered on both the old and new servers.
> But that weakens the check. For instance, if you had seven invalid
> indexes in one cluster and eight in the other, you wouldn't notice.
That is true, though the assumption is that invalid indexes are
insignficant. It would be a new case where actual non-system-table
_files_ were not transfered.
Seems most people want the error so I will start working on a patch.
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: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-12-07 17:01:52|
|Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-12-07 16:46:51|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|