Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTLLgGY+MZ_O_WSZ3n=+TOVNmeaTqjrskuA9Um-=-rysA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please find attached the patches wanted:
> - 20130317_dump_only_valid_index.patch, a 1-line patch that makes pg_dump
> not take a dump of invalid indexes. This patch can be backpatched to 9.0.

Don't indisready and indislive need to be checked?

The patch seems to change pg_dump so that it ignores an invalid index only
when the remote server version >= 9.0. But why not when the remote server
version < 9.0?

I think that you should start new thread to get much attention about this patch
if there is no enough feedback.
Yeah... Will send a message about that...
 

> Note that there have been some recent discussions about that. This *problem*
> also concerned pg_upgrade.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121207141236.GB4699@alvh.no-ip.org

What's the conclusion of this discussion? pg_dump --binary-upgrade also should
ignore an invalid index? pg_upgrade needs to be changed together?
The conclusion is that pg_dump should not need to include invalid indexes if it is
to create them as valid index during restore. However I haven't seen any patch...
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robins Tharakan
Date:
Subject: Re: Add some regression tests for SEQUENCE
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY