On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:23:14PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I was wrong about this. We would need to modify pg_dump to skip invalid indexes (perhaps only for --binary-upgrade), and pg_upgrade would also need to be modified to skip such indexes. This is necessary because, as a safety check, pg_upgrade requires there to be an exact match of relations between old and new clusters. -- 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
