Tom Lane <> schrieb:

>"" <> writes:
>> Tom Lane <> schrieb:
>>> Yeah, if you can just ignore !indisvalid indexes that should work
>>> 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?


Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to