"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.)
regards, tom lane
