Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec  7, 2012 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2012-12-07 13:59:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> indisvalid should be sufficient.  If you try to test more than that
> >> you're going to make the code more version-specific, without actually
> >> buying much.
> 
> > Doesn't the check need to be at least indisvalid && indisready? Given
> > that 9.2 represents !indislive as indisvalid && !indisready?
> 
> Um, good point.  It's annoying that we had to do it like that ...

So, does this affect pg_upgrade?  Which PG versions?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +