On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:27:21PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 09:45:11PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > 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. > > > > They would get the warning during pg_upgrade --check, of course. > > Sure, if they happened to have a concurrent index creation going when > they ran the check... But what if they didn't and it only happened to > happen during the actual pg_upgrade? I'm still not thrilled with this > idea of making the user have to abort in the middle to address something > that, really, isn't a big deal to just preserve and deal with later...
If a concurrent index creation was happening during the check, pg_upgrade --check would fail. I don't think there is any indication if the index is failed, or in process. That is a good argument for _not_ throwing an error because index creation is more of an intermediate state. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
