On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@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.gb4...@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... > The fix has been done inside pg_upgrade: http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#December_14_2012 Nothing has been done for pg_dump. -- Michael
