On 2013/03/17, at 0:35, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have been working on improving the code of the 2 patches:
>
> I found pg_dump dumps even the invalid index. But pg_dump should
> ignore the invalid index?
> This problem exists even without REINDEX CONCURRENTLY patch. So we might need to
> implement the bugfix patch separately rather than including the bugfix
> code in your patches.
> Probably the backport would be required. Thought?
Hum... Indeed, they shouldn't be included... Perhaps this is already known?
>
> We should add the concurrent reindex option into reindexdb command?
> This can be really
> separate patch, though.
Yes, they definitely should be separated for simplicity.
Btw, those patches seem trivial, I'll send them.
Michael
