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.

Reply via email to