| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2013-03-18 18:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwE1YOye2SecgCBTK8wk6wNjkWaz6zPL_3uRn4JQ6zfU9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
> 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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-18 18:21:44 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-03-18 17:56:02 | Re: transforms |