Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Invalid also means currently-in-progress, so it would be better to keep them >> in.
> For invalid indexes which are left hanging around in the database, if > the index definition is included by pg_dump, it will likely cause pain > during the restore. If the index build failed the first time and > hasn't been manually dropped and recreated since then, it's a good bet > it will fail the next time. Errors during restore can be more than > just a nuisance; consider restores with --single-transaction. > And if the index is simply currently-in-progress, it seems like the > expected behavior would be for pg_dump to ignore it anyway. We don't > include other DDL objects which are not yet committed while pg_dump is > running. I had been on the fence about what to do here, but I find Josh's arguments persuasive, particularly the second one. Why shouldn't we consider an in-progress index to be an uncommitted DDL change? (Now admittedly, there won't *be* any uncommitted ordinary DDL on tables while pg_dump is running, because it takes AccessShareLock on all tables. But there could easily be uncommitted DDL against other types of database objects, which pg_dump won't even see.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers