* Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote:
> So we'll lose the index definition and leave some files behind? This
> sounds a bit messy to say the least.
Agreed.
> Making the user fix it seems much more sensible to me. Otherwise I
> suspect we'll find users who get strangely surprised when they can
> no longer find any trace of an expected index in their upgraded
> database.
Or preserve it as-is. I don't really like the 'make them fix it'
option, as a user could run into that in the middle of a planned upgrade
that had been tested and never had that come up.
Thanks,
Stephen
