Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Please find attached the patches wanted:
>> > - 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch that makes
>> pg_dump
>> > not take a dump of invalid indexes. This patch can be backpatched to
>> 9.0.
>>
>> Don't indisready and indislive need to be checked?
>>
>> The patch seems to change pg_dump so that it ignores an invalid index only
>> when the remote server version >= 9.0. But why not when the remote server
>> version < 9.0?
>>
>> I think that you should start new thread to get much attention about this
>> patch
>> if there is no enough feedback.
>>
> Yeah... Will send a message about that...
>
>
>>
>> > Note that there have been some recent discussions about that. This
>> *problem*
>> > also concerned pg_upgrade.
>> >
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121207141236.GB4699@alvh.no-ip.org
>>
>> What's the conclusion of this discussion? pg_dump --binary-upgrade also
>> should
>> ignore an invalid index? pg_upgrade needs to be changed together?
>>
> The conclusion is that pg_dump should not need to include invalid indexes
> if it is
> to create them as valid index during restore. However I haven't seen any
> patch...
>
The fix has been done inside pg_upgrade:
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#December_14_2012

Nothing has been done for pg_dump.
--
Michael