On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 09:16:56AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 7 December 2012 04:02, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> > >> On 12/06/2012 09:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> >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. > >> > >> So we'll lose the index definition and leave some files behind? This > >> sounds a bit messy to say the least. > > > > I find it hard to get excited about this being a real problem. If the > > index has been kept invalid, how come the definition is so valuable? > > Agreed. > > I don't see the problem... just say "rebuild any invalid indexes > before you run pg_upgrade". > > I don't think pg_upgrade should take the responsibility of fixing > everything broken before you run an upgrade. Making that rod for our > backs looks pretty bad here and could get worse if other situations > come to light. > > Maybe it should have a mode where it detects that it would fail if you > attempted the upgrade...
That's what pg_upgrade --check does, but see my email about in-process concurrent index builds also causing a failure. -- 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
