| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Drop index behind pg_upgrade test issue. |
| Date: | 2021-03-11 16:37:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=+19EF0pvN6M3e6Gudf9E9LL+05bPVLSmTtZNue5GESw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Strongly agree. I hadn't realized that the patch actually *removed*
> the index reloption, rather than just turning it into a no-op. I think
> that's a complete nonstarter. It will break pg_upgrade scenarios where
> users have indexes with that option set. It's an especially bad idea
> to have done it in a stable branch, but I doubt we can get away with
> it even in HEAD.
But I haven't removed the index reloption (or the GUC of the same
name) on the 13 branch. I just made it a no-op there, and removed the
documentation.
Evidently there is a consensus that the reloption should not have been
removed on HEAD. I'll discuss that on the other -committers thread
now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-03-11 16:55:52 | Re: pgsql: Don't consider newly inserted tuples in nbtree VACUUM. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-11 16:27:19 | Re: pgsql: Drop index behind pg_upgrade test issue. |