On 2012-12-07 10:22:12 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > Yes, I thought of not dumping it. The problem is that we don't delete > > the index when it fails, so I assumed we didn't want to lose the index > > creation information. I need to understand why we did that. Why do we > > have pg_dump dump the index then? > > Because pg_restore will recreate the index from scratch, which is > presumably what users want most of the time. So this issue doesn't > exist outside of pg_upgrade.
I wonder though if we shouldn't ignore !indislive indexes in pg_dump (and the respective bw-compat hack). Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
