From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Date: | 2013-03-28 21:35:08 |
Message-ID: | 20130328213508.GD2126@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:31:51PM +0100, anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> schrieb:
>
> >Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> Should I just patch pg_upgrade to remove the "indisvalid", skip
> >> "indisvalid" indexes, and backpatch it? Users should be using the
> >> version of pg_upgrade to match new pg_dump. Is there any case where
> >> they don't match? Do I still need to check for "indisready"?
> >
> >Yeah, if you can just ignore !indisvalid indexes that should work fine.
> >I see no need to look at indisready if you're doing that.
>
> You need to look at inisready in 9.2 since thats used for about to be dropped indexes. No?
Well, if it is dropped, pg_dump will not dump it. At this point though,
pg_upgrade is either running in check mode, or it is the only user. I
think we are OK.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2013-03-28 21:38:05 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-03-28 21:31:51 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-28 21:38:05 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-03-28 21:31:51 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |