From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 02:23:14 |
Message-ID: | 20121207022314.GQ30893@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:10:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 07:53:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Because CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can't drop the index if it's already
> >> failed. It's not because we want to do that, it's an implementation
> >> restriction of the horrid kluge that is CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
> > Well, what is the logic that pg_dump dumps it then, even in
> > non-binary-upgrade mode?
>
> Actually, I was thinking about proposing exactly that. Ideally the
> system should totally ignore an invalid index (we just fixed some bugs
> in that line already). So it would be perfectly consistent for pg_dump
> to ignore it too, with or without --binary-upgrade.
>
> One possible spanner in the works for pg_upgrade is that this would mean
> there can be relation files in the database directories that it should
> ignore (not transfer over). Dunno if that takes any logic changes.
As soon as pg_dump stopped dumping the CREATE INDEX, pg_upgrade would
stop creating creating it in the new cluster, and not transfer the index
files.
--
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 | Vlad Arkhipov | 2012-12-07 02:38:13 | Re: How to check whether the row was modified by this transaction before? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-07 02:10:21 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |