On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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: > > > contrib/pg_upgrade/version_old_8_3.c::old_8_3_invalidate_hash_gin_indexes() > > I would be happy to restore that code and make it work for PG 10.
Cool! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers