On 2012-12-07 13:59:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec  7, 2012 at 07:49:14PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> !indislive indexes are created during DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY. Thats a
> >> different case than CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY. Accessing their
> >> definition is actually problematic because i can vanish while youre
> >> examing it which could cause errors both in the backend and in pg_dump.
>
> > Is that something pg_upgrade need to worry about too?  Is
> > pg_index.indisvalid the only thing pg_upgrade need to check?
>
> 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?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

• Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes at 2012-12-07 18:59:41 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes at 2012-12-07 21:21:48 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2012-12-07 19:24:49
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes
Previous:	From: Andres Freund	Date: 2012-12-07 19:07:18
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes