Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 07:53:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can't drop the index if it's already
>> failed. It's not because we want to do that, it's an implementation
>> restriction of the horrid kluge that is CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
> Well, what is the logic that pg_dump dumps it then, even in
> non-binary-upgrade mode?
Actually, I was thinking about proposing exactly that. Ideally the
system should totally ignore an invalid index (we just fixed some bugs
in that line already). So it would be perfectly consistent for pg_dump
to ignore it too, with or without --binary-upgrade.
One possible spanner in the works for pg_upgrade is that this would mean
there can be relation files in the database directories that it should
ignore (not transfer over). Dunno if that takes any logic changes.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-12-07 02:23:14|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes|
|Previous:||From: Michael Paquier||Date: 2012-12-07 01:54:52|
|Subject: Re: [WIP] pg_ping utility|