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

Reply via email to