Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2012-11-28 17:42:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree it's a judgment call, though. Anybody want to argue for the
>> other position?
> Hm. Seems odd to include indexes that are being dropped concurrently at
> that moment. But then, we can't really detect that situation and as you
> say its consistent with pg_dump...
[ thinks about that for a bit... ] We could have that, for about the same
cost as the currently proposed patch: instead of defining the added flag
column as "index is live", define it as "drop in progress", and set it
immediately at the start of the DROP CONCURRENTLY sequence. Then the
"dead" condition that RelationGetIndexList must check for is "drop in
progress and not indisvalid and not indisready".
However, this is more complicated and harder to understand. So unless
somebody is really excited about being able to tell the difference
between create-in-progress and drop-in-progress, I'd rather leave the
patch as-is.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
