On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On top of checking indisvalid, I think that some additional checks on > > indislive and indisready are also necessary. > > Those are not necessary, as an index that is marked indisvalid should > certainly also have those flags set. If it didn't require making two > new version distinctions in getIndexes(), I'd be okay with the extra > checks; but as-is I think the maintenance pain this would add greatly > outweighs any likely value. > > I've committed this in the simpler form that just adds indisvalid > checks to the appropriate version cases. > Thanks. -- Michael
