On 2013/03/17, at 0:35, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
