On 2012-12-07 13:59:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 07:49:14PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > >> !indislive indexes are created during DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY. Thats a > >> different case than CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY. Accessing their > >> definition is actually problematic because i can vanish while youre > >> examing it which could cause errors both in the backend and in pg_dump. > > > Is that something pg_upgrade need to worry about too? Is > > pg_index.indisvalid the only thing pg_upgrade need to check? > > indisvalid should be sufficient. If you try to test more than that > you're going to make the code more version-specific, without actually > buying much.
Doesn't the check need to be at least indisvalid && indisready? Given that 9.2 represents indislive as indisvalid && !indisready? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
