Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb:
>"anarazel@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@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
partiallydropped indexes?
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
