On Fri, Dec  7, 2012 at 10:38:39PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.

OK, updated patch attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

• Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes at 2012-12-07 21:38:39 from Andres Freund

Responses

• Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes at 2012-12-11 20:12:37 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2012-12-07 22:01:57
	Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option
Previous:	From: Andres Freund	Date: 2012-12-07 21:38:39
	Subject: Re: pg_upgrade problem with invalid indexes