Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 ...
regards, tom lane