On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:36 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I'd take that as an indication that Michael had a point with his
> complaint[1]. Perhaps it would be better to implement one of his
> ideas than to remove the test.
The Postgres 11 and 12 "drop index" commits are now reverted.
Thanks
--
Pete
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Strongly agree. I hadn't realized that the patch actually *removed*
> the index reloption, rather than just turning it into a no-op. I think
> that's a complete nonstarter. It will break pg_upgrade scenarios where
> users have indexes with that
Laurenz Albe writes:
> On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 03:02 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Fix the test failure by dropping the index in question.
> I'd take that as an indication that Michael had a point with his
> complaint[1]. Perhaps it would be better to implement one of his
> ideas than to remove
On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 03:02 +, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor storage parameter was set in a
> btree index that was previously left behind in the regression test
> database. As a result, the index gets tested within pg_dump and
> pg_restore tests, as well as pg_
Drop index behind pg_upgrade test issue.
The vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor storage parameter was set in a
btree index that was previously left behind in the regression test
database. As a result, the index gets tested within pg_dump and
pg_restore tests, as well as pg_upgrade testing. This w
Drop index behind pg_upgrade test issue.
The vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor storage parameter was set in a
btree index that was previously left behind in the regression test
database. As a result, the index gets tested within pg_dump and
pg_restore tests, as well as pg_upgrade testing. This w
