| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump |
| Date: | 2013-03-26 23:19:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTn660ArfDjpRpzhdoKdJke=+sZKJmUw8bQ6VKMdDheBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On top of checking indisvalid, I think that some additional checks on
> > indislive and indisready are also necessary.
>
> Those are not necessary, as an index that is marked indisvalid should
> certainly also have those flags set. If it didn't require making two
> new version distinctions in getIndexes(), I'd be okay with the extra
> checks; but as-is I think the maintenance pain this would add greatly
> outweighs any likely value.
>
> I've committed this in the simpler form that just adds indisvalid
> checks to the appropriate version cases.
>
Thanks.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-03-26 23:23:23 | Re: regression test failed when enabling checksum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-26 22:30:45 | Re: spoonbill vs. -HEAD |