| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Date: | 2019-01-15 00:06:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20190115000648.zd2h7rjodo6qipr4@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-01-14 19:04:07 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> As that's the case, then I guess I'm thinking we really should make
> pg_upgrade complain if it finds it during the check phase. I really
> don't like having a case like this where the pg_upgrade will fail from
> something that we could have detected during the pre-flight check,
> that's what it's for, after all.
I suggest you write a separate patch for that in that case.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-15 00:10:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-15 00:06:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |