On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I had been on the fence about what to do here, but I find Josh's > arguments persuasive, particularly the second one. Why shouldn't we > consider an in-progress index to be an uncommitted DDL change? > > (Now admittedly, there won't *be* any uncommitted ordinary DDL on tables > while pg_dump is running, because it takes AccessShareLock on all > tables. But there could easily be uncommitted DDL against other types > of database objects, which pg_dump won't even see.) > +1. Playing it safe is a better thing to do for sure, especially if a restore would fail. I didn't think about that first... On top of checking indisvalid, I think that some additional checks on indislive and indisready are also necessary. As indisready has been introduced in 8.3 and indislive has been added in 9.3, the attached patch is good I think. I also added a note in the documentation about invalid indexes not being dumped. Perhaps this patch should be backpatched to previous versions in order to have the same consistent behavior. Regards, -- Michael
20130321_no_dump_indisvalid.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
