Re: undead index
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: undead index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12234.1304697022@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: undead index (Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@affinitas.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: undead index
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@affinitas.de> writes: > Thanks Tom, yes, the index is named > Indexes: > "concurrently" btree (ulq_guid) > In the 8.4 cluster and 9.0.4's pg_dumpall dumps it as > CREATE INDEX concurrently ON foo USING btree (ulq_guid); > That's it. Oh, fun. We knew that not reserving that keyword was going to cause some problems. > But shouldn't pg_upgrade be able to handle this? It's not pg_upgrade's fault; it's pg_dump that's failing to reproduce the state of the source database. I'm inclined to think that maybe we should hack pg_dump to forcibly quote "concurrently" in this context, even though it doesn't do so anywhere else since the word isn't reserved. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: