Re: undead index

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jens Wilke <jens(dot)wilke(at)affinitas(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: undead index
Date: 2011-05-06 16:08:58
Message-ID: 12558.1304698138@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I wrote:
> It's not pg_upgrade's fault; it's pg_dump that's failing to reproduce
> the state of the source database.

> I'm inclined to think that maybe we should hack pg_dump to forcibly
> quote "concurrently" in this context, even though it doesn't do so
> anywhere else since the word isn't reserved.

On closer inspection, pg_dump *does* quote "concurrently" ... if you're
dumping from a 9.0 or later database. The problem is that it gets the
index definition command from pg_get_indexdef(), which means it's
relying on the server to do appropriate quoting, and a pre-9.0 server
does not think there is any reason to quote "concurrently".

There doesn't appear to be any fix for this that doesn't require a time
machine and/or a lot more effort than it's worth. Suggest you rename
the index in the 8.4 database.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jens Wilke 2011-05-06 16:22:11 Re: undead index
Previous Message Iain Barnett 2011-05-06 15:51:21 Re: Locale and UTF8 for template1 in 8.4.4