Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Release note updates.
> Sorry for not noticing earlier, but there is a bug in the notes:
Mmm, right.
> May I suggest
> + If <command>CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY</> was used to build an index
> + that depends on a column not previously indexed, then rows
> + updated by transactions that ran concurrently with
> + the <command>CREATE INDEX</> command could have missed receiving
> + index entries.
Can we say "pre-existing rows that were updated by...", or is that
too optimistic?
(I fear this is too late for the current set of releases; I don't want
to make the packagers redo their work just for this. But we can correct
it for future wraps.)
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
