On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:10:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 07:53:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Because CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY can't drop the index if it's already
> >> failed. It's not because we want to do that, it's an implementation
> >> restriction of the horrid kluge that is CREATE/DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
>
> > Well, what is the logic that pg_dump dumps it then, even in
> > non-binary-upgrade mode?
>
> Actually, I was thinking about proposing exactly that. Ideally the
> system should totally ignore an invalid index (we just fixed some bugs
> in that line already). So it would be perfectly consistent for pg_dump
> to ignore it too, with or without --binary-upgrade.
>
> One possible spanner in the works for pg_upgrade is that this would mean
> there can be relation files in the database directories that it should
> ignore (not transfer over). Dunno if that takes any logic changes.
As soon as pg_dump stopped dumping the CREATE INDEX, pg_upgrade would
stop creating creating it in the new cluster, and not transfer the index
files.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
