| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Date: | 2012-12-07 14:44:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20121207144418.GH31540@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 03:32:51PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Well, it is a CONCURRENT index creation, so locking would be minimal.
>
> I wouldn't call a ShareUpdateExclusiveLock minimal...
>
> > Do we want pg_upgrade to be groveling over the lock view to look for
> > locks? I don't think so.
>
> ISTM that anybody who does DDL during or after pg_upgrade --check
> deserves any pain.
>
> So throwing an error in both seems perfectly fine for me.
Well, most of the current checks relate to checks for created objects.
To fail for in-process concurrent index creation is to fail for an
intermediate state --- index creation in process, but might complete
before we do the actual upgrade. Or it might not be an intermediate
state.
I am just saying that this makes the --check report more likely to false
failures than currently configured.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-07 15:29:22 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-07 14:32:51 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |