On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 20:05 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think I prefer the first suggestion. If they are trying to upgrade
> when there's an invalid index presumably they aren't aware of the
> invalidity (or they would have done something about it). It would be
> better to fail and make them fix or remove the index, ISTM.
I'm a little concerned about introducing extra causes of failure into
upgrade when we don't have to. They could have gone on with that invalid
index forever, and I don't see it as the job of upgrade to alert someone
to that problem.
That being said, it's a reasonable position, and I am fine with either
approach.
Regards,Jeff Davis