On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 03:32:51PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > >> ISTM that anybody who does DDL during or after pg_upgrade --check > >> deserves any pain. > >> > >> So throwing an error in both seems perfectly fine for me. > > I agree with Andres on this. > > > I am just saying that this makes the --check report more likely to false > > failures than currently configured. > > It's not a "false" failure. If you were to force-shutdown the system at > that instant (not allowing C.I.C. to complete) then do a pg_upgrade, it > would fail. So what's wrong with telling the user so?
True. > If you want, you could have the error message include some weasel > wording about how this might be only a transient state, but frankly > I think that's more likely to be confusing than helpful. As Andres > says, nobody should expect that it's sensible to do "pg_upgrade --check" > while any DDL is actively executing, so you'd be warning about a state > that more than likely isn't reality anyway. Well, if we fail, we want to give the user a solution to fixing it, and that solution is going to be different if the index is in-process, or from long ago. Those index names are going to be dumped into a file for the user to review. It will require weasel wording because pg_upgrade will have to say that the indexes are either in the process of being concurrently created, or are the result of a failed concurrent index creation in the past. They will either have to wait for the index creation to complete or delete the invalid index. > On balance I am coming around to support the "just throw an error if > there are any invalid indexes" position. Adding extra complication in > pg_dump and pg_upgrade to handle ignoring them doesn't seem like a good > idea --- for one thing, it will evidently weaken the strength of the > same-number-of-relations cross-check. The check would remain the same --- the change would be to prevent invalid indexes from being considered on both the old and new servers. -- 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
