"Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> AFAICS, the whole indcreatexid and validForTxn business is a waste of >> code. By the time CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY is ready to set indisvalid, >> surely any transactions that could see the broken HOT chains are gone. >> There might have been some reason for this contraption before we had >> plan invalidation, but what use is it now? > > Argh, sorry, rereading your message I see there are a few details which I > missed which completely change the meaning of it. Ignore my previous mail :(
In answer to the real question you were actually asking, I believe you're correct that CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY should never need to set indcreatexid. Only regular non-concurrent CREATE INDEX needs to protect against that problem. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
