On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:10:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
