Re: undead index - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: undead index
Date
Msg-id 12234.1304697022@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: undead index  (Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@affinitas.de>)
Responses Re: undead index  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@affinitas.de> writes:
> Thanks Tom, yes, the index is named
> Indexes:
>     "concurrently" btree (ulq_guid)
> In the 8.4 cluster and 9.0.4's pg_dumpall dumps it as

> CREATE INDEX concurrently ON foo USING btree (ulq_guid);

> That's it.

Oh, fun.  We knew that not reserving that keyword was going to cause
some problems.

> But shouldn't pg_upgrade be able to handle this?

It's not pg_upgrade's fault; it's pg_dump that's failing to reproduce
the state of the source database.

I'm inclined to think that maybe we should hack pg_dump to forcibly
quote "concurrently" in this context, even though it doesn't do so
anywhere else since the word isn't reserved.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jens Wilke
Date:
Subject: Re: undead index
Next
From: Iain Barnett
Date:
Subject: Re: Locale and UTF8 for template1 in 8.4.4