On 2013-03-28 17:54:08 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:47:55PM +0100, anara...@anarazel.de wrote: > > > > > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb: > > > > >"anara...@anarazel.de" <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb: > > >>> Yeah, if you can just ignore !indisvalid indexes that should work > > >fine. > > >>> I see no need to look at indisready if you're doing that. > > > > > >> You need to look at inisready in 9.2 since thats used for about to > > >> be > > >dropped indexes. No? > > > > > >No, he doesn't need to look at indisready/indislive; if either of > > >those flags are off then indisvalid should certainly be off too. (If > > >it isn't, queries against the table are already in trouble.) > > > > 9.2 represents inisdead as live && !ready, doesn't it? So just looking > > at indislive will include about to be dropped or partially dropped > > indexes? > > Where do you see 'inisdead' defined?
Sorry, its named the reverse, indislive. And its only there in 9.3+... 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
