On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1, as long as we're clear on what will happen when pg_upgrade'ing > an installation containing hash indexes. I think a minimum requirement is > that it succeed and be able to start up, and allow the user to manually > REINDEX such indexes afterwards. Bonus points for: > > 1. teaching pg_upgrade to create a script containing the required REINDEX > commands. (I think it's produced scripts for similar requirements in the > past.) > > 2. marking the index invalid so that the system would silently ignore it > until it's been reindexed. I think there might be adequate infrastructure > for that already thanks to REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, and it'd just be a matter > of getting pg_upgrade to hack the indexes' catalog state. (If not, it's > probably not worth the trouble.)
We already have code to do all of that, but it was removed from pg_upgrade in 9.5. You can still see it in 9.4: contrib/pg_upgrade/version_old_8_3.c::old_8_3_invalidate_hash_gin_indexes() I would be happy to restore that code and make it work for PG 10. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers