On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2012-12-07 13:59:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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? > > Um, good point. It's annoying that we had to do it like that ...
So, does this affect pg_upgrade? Which PG versions? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
