From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:55:18 -0500
Message-ID: <20190114235518.GX2528@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190114235115.lpapnfcezuoyizo2@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180511143737.rvogcsxdksrhyyj5@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CANP8+jLgdS-_ka5bhyG_=f5wGYVY-bQy3YD7rJY=TDnpA1snmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+Tgmob_qk-w38Mbp5wCCGH9G8AFpmB0K0aTLujJqHNbBpBNUA@mail.gmail.com>
<25975.1541618754@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190114223409.3tcvejfhlvbucrv5@alap3.anarazel.de>
<28044.1547507004@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190114230918.fhp6wktbhg6pjnyw@alap3.anarazel.de>
<28651.1547507948@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190114234617.GW2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
<20190114235115.lpapnfcezuoyizo2@alap3.anarazel.de>
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-01-14 18:46:18 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > > On 2019-01-14 18:03:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> Do we want to revert entirely, or leave the "recheck_on_update" option
> > > >> present but nonfunctional?
> > >
> > > > I think it depends a bit on whether we want to revert in master or
> > > > master and 11. If only master, I don't see much point in leaving the
> > > > option around. If both, I think we should (need to?) leave it around in
> > > > 11 only.
> > >
> > > After a few minutes' more thought, I think that the most attractive
> > > option is to leave v11 alone and do a full revert in HEAD. In this
> > > way, if anyone's attached "recheck_on_update" options to their indexes,
> > > it'll continue to work^H^H^H^Hdo nothing in v11, though they won't be
> > > able to migrate to v12 till they remove the options. That way we
> > > aren't bound to the questionable design and naming of that storage
> > > option if/when we try this again.
> >
> > So the plan is to add a check into pg_upgrade to complain if it comes
> > across any cases where recheck_on_update is set during its pre-flight
> > checks..?
>
> I don't think so.
I could possibly see us just ignoring the option in pg_dump, but that
goes against what Tom was suggesting, since users wouldn't see an error
if we don't dump the option out..
> > Or are you suggesting that pg_dump in v12+ would throw errors if it
> > finds that set? Or that we'll dump it, but fail to allow it into a
> > v12+ database? What if v12 sees "recheck_on_update='false'", as a v11
> > pg_dump might output today?
>
> It'll just error out on restore (including the internal one by
> pg_upgrade). I don't see much point in doing more, this isn't a widely
> used option by any stretch.
This.. doesn't actually make sense. The pg_upgrade will use v12+
pg_dump. You're saying that the v12+ pg_dump will dump out the option,
but then the restore will fail to understand it?
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, michael.paquier@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, myon@debian.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
In-Reply-To: <20190114235518.GX2528@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox