On 2012-12-07 16:30:36 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?

Only 9.2 :(. Before that there was no DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY and in 9.3
there's an actual indislive field and indisready is always set to false
there if indislive is false.

But I see no problem using !indisvalid || !indisready as the condition
in all (supported) versions.

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 21:30:36 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes at 2012-12-07 21:49:19 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2012-12-07 21:49:19
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-12-07 21:37:32
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes