| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: rangetypes spgist questions/refactoring |
| Date: | 2014-05-28 10:41:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20140528104102.GB28490@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:18:29AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I think this can be done without breaking upgrade compatibility, because
> I think the structure already satisfies the invariants I mentioned in
> the other email (aside from the special case of a root tuple with two
> nodes and no prefix). That being said, it's a little scary to refactor
> indexing code while trying to keep it upgrade-compatible.
We can make pg_upgrade mark such indexes as invalid and create a user
script to reindex all the indexes after the upgrade. We have done
that in the past.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-05-28 10:53:34 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-05-28 09:52:22 | Re: Race condition within _bt_findinsertloc()? (new page split code) |