| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Date: | 2012-12-07 21:30:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20121207213036.GA1428@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...
So, does this affect pg_upgrade? Which PG versions?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-07 21:37:32 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-07 21:21:48 | Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes |