On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing
> an installation containing hash indexes.  I think a minimum requirement is
> that it succeed and be able to start up, and allow the user to manually
> REINDEX such indexes afterwards.  Bonus points for:
> 1. teaching pg_upgrade to create a script containing the required REINDEX
> commands.  (I think it's produced scripts for similar requirements in the
> past.)
> 2. marking the index invalid so that the system would silently ignore it
> until it's been reindexed.  I think there might be adequate infrastructure
> for that already thanks to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, and it'd just be a matter
> of getting pg_upgrade to hack the indexes' catalog state.  (If not, it's
> probably not worth the trouble.)

We already have code to do all of that, but it was removed from
pg_upgrade in 9.5.  You can still see it in 9.4:


I would be happy to restore that code and make it work for PG 10.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to