On 2017-05-01 11:22:47 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Petr Jelinek > > <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Back when writing the original patch set, I was also playing with the > >> idea of having CREATE SUBSCRIPTION do multiple committed steps in > >> similar fashion to CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY but that leaves mess behind > >> on failure which also wasn't very popular outcome. > > There is no inherent reason why the CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY style of > using multiple transactions makes it necessary to leave a mess behind > in the event of an error or hard crash. Is someone going to get around > to fixing the problem for CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (e.g., having > extra steps to drop the useless index during recovery)? IIRC, this was > always the plan.
Doing catalog changes in recovery is frought with problems. Essentially requires starting one worker per database, before allowing access. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
