On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Does the current code cope with the corruption? > > It's not corruption, but "intended degradation". Yes, the current code copes > with it, that's how GiST survives a crash. However, even with the current > code, VACUUM will nag if it finds any invalid tuples with this message: > > ereport(NOTICE, > (errmsg("index \"%s\" needs VACUUM FULL or REINDEX to finish crash > recovery", > > That's harmless, in the sense that all scans and inserts work fine, but > scans might need to do more work than if the invalid tuple wasn't there. > > I don't think we need to go out of our way to support such degraded indexes > in 9.1. If you see such notices in your logs, you should REINDEX anyway, > before of after pg_upgrade. Let's just make sure that you get a reasonable > error message in 9.1 if a scan or insert encounters such a tuple.
I just don't want to take a risk of giving people unexpected wrong answers. It's not clear to me whether that's a risk here or not. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers