On 2013-03-28 17:35:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:31:51PM +0100, anara...@anarazel.de wrote: > > > > > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb: > > > > >Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > >> Should I just patch pg_upgrade to remove the "indisvalid", skip > > >> "indisvalid" indexes, and backpatch it? Users should be using the > > >> version of pg_upgrade to match new pg_dump. Is there any case where > > >> they don't match? Do I still need to check for "indisready"? > > > > > >Yeah, if you can just ignore !indisvalid indexes that should work fine. > > >I see no need to look at indisready if you're doing that. > > > > You need to look at inisready in 9.2 since thats used for about to be > > dropped indexes. No? > > Well, if it is dropped, pg_dump will not dump it. At this point though, > pg_upgrade is either running in check mode, or it is the only user. I > think we are OK.
Its about DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY which can leave indexes in a partial state visible to the outside. Either just transiently while a DROP CONCURRENLTY is going on or even permanently if the server crashed during such a drop or similar. c.f. index.c:index_drop Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers