On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:47:55PM +0100, anarazel@anarazel.de wrote:
>
>
> 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 partially dropped
> indexes?
Where do you see 'inisdead' defined?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
