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? -- 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
