From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Date: | 2013-03-28 21:54:08 |
Message-ID: | 20130328215408.GF2126@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:47:55PM +0100, anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de wrote:
>
>
> 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?
Where do you see 'inisdead' defined?
--
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 | Andres Freund | 2013-03-28 22:08:07 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-03-28 21:47:55 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-28 22:08:07 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |
Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-03-28 21:47:55 | Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump. |