On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2012-12-07 09:21:58 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:27:21PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:45:11PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Sure, if they happened to have a concurrent index creation going when > > > they ran the check... But what if they didn't and it only happened to > > > happen during the actual pg_upgrade? I'm still not thrilled with this > > > idea of making the user have to abort in the middle to address something > > > that, really, isn't a big deal to just preserve and deal with later... > > > > If a concurrent index creation was happening during the check, > > pg_upgrade --check would fail. I don't think there is any indication if > > the index is failed, or in process. > > There should be a lock on the table + index if the creation is in > progress.
Well, it is a CONCURRENT index creation, so locking would be minimal. Do we want pg_upgrade to be groveling over the lock view to look for locks? I don't think so. > > That is a good argument for _not_ throwing an error because index > > creation is more of an intermediate state. > > Uhm. If pg_upgrade is actually running its definitely not an > intermediate state anymore... It would be running pg_upgrade --check, which can be run while the old server is running. -- 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
