Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Doesn't the check need to be at least indisvalid && indisready? Given
>>> that 9.2 represents !indislive as indisvalid && !indisready?
>> Um, good point. It's annoying that we had to do it like that ...
> So, does this affect pg_upgrade? Which PG versions?
I think you can just insist on indisvalid and indisready both being
true. That's okay in all releases back to 8.3.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
