Heikki Linnakangas 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.
>
> There is a section on this in the docs, BTW:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/gist-recovery.html
OK, administrators will be prompted during normal operation --- seems
there is nothing extra for pg_upgrade to do here.
--
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
