On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willy-Bas Loos <willybas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So what i don't get is, -if the above is the case- If pg_dump expects to
> find an index, it already knows about its existence. Then why does it need
> to look for it again?
pg_dump can't tell the index is no longer there --- but some of the
backend functions it calls can tell, and they throw errors.
There are various ways this might be rejiggered, but none of them
entirely remove all risk of failure in the presence of concurrent DDL.
Personally I'd recommend just retrying the pg_dump until it succeeds.
regards, tom lane
Now that i know what it is, I can live with it.
Thanks for the insight!--
Willy-Bas Loos
