On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote: > That worries me - it is not the behaviour someone expects from a > database by default. At least the warning should be much more visible > and obvious. > I think most of user will expect the same guarantees as [CREATE|RE] > INDEX CONCURRENTLY provides.
Having a unified path for the handling of the waits and the locking sounds to me like a pretty good argument in favor of a basic implementation. In my experience, users do not really care about the time it takes to complete a operation involving CONCURRENTLY if we allow concurrent reads and writes in parallel of it. I have not looked at the proposal in details, but before trying a more folkloric MVCC approach, relying on basics that we know have been working for some time seems like a good and sufficient initial step in terms of handling the waits and the locks with table AMs (aka heap or something else). Just my 2c. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
