On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:45:11PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > > So we'll lose the index definition and leave some files behind? This > > sounds a bit messy to say the least. > > Agreed. > > > Making the user fix it seems much more sensible to me. Otherwise I > > suspect we'll find users who get strangely surprised when they can > > no longer find any trace of an expected index in their upgraded > > database. > > Or preserve it as-is. I don't really like the 'make them fix it' > option, as a user could run into that in the middle of a planned upgrade > that had been tested and never had that come up.
They would get the warning during pg_upgrade --check, of course. -- 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
