> On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2026-Sep-16, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > > + /* number of key attributes must match */ > > + if (indexForm1->indnkeyatts != indexForm2->indnkeyatts) > > + return false; > > > > I see that it was like this in the original commit, but isn't it too > > restrictive regarding the goal stated in the function comment? If say > > there are two unique indexes on columns (a), and (a, b), they have the > > same understanding of what tuples will conflict, but the latter one will > > not be used as an arbiter index. To be fair, I don't see how this may > > become problem in practice, but still. > > I'm not sure I understand this concern. Do you want to elaborate? > > This functionality is there to support having two copies of "the same" > index during REINDEX CONCURRENTLY, and of course the second copy is > going to be identical in definition to the first one. > > Maybe you want to propose a different name or a different comment for > this new function?
Yes, I get that. But the way how comment is written seems to emphasize interchangeability of indexes in general, mentioning REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as one use case, but not necessarily the only one -- or at least it's my reading of it. Maybe a better commentary can solve it, but since it's already pushed, consider it to be an optional nit pick.
