From: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Date: | 2013-03-28 21:47:55 |
Message-ID: | 1389848e-b1de-4bb6-8dbd-43a47c9ee93b@email.android.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> schrieb:
>"anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> schrieb:
>>> Yeah, if you can just ignore !indisvalid indexes that should work
>fine.
>>> I see no need to look at indisready if you're doing that.
>
>> You need to look at inisready in 9.2 since thats used for about to be
>dropped indexes. No?
>
>No, he doesn't need to look at indisready/indislive; if either of those
>flags are off then indisvalid should certainly be off too. (If it
>isn't, queries against the table are already in trouble.)
9.2 represents inisdead as live && !ready, doesn't it? So just looking at indislive will include about to be dropped or partially dropped indexes?
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-03-28 21:54:08 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-28 21:38:05 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-03-28 21:54:08 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-28 21:38:05 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |